AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Ohio Valley => Topic started by: truejd on August 05, 2010, 10:32:59 AM

Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: truejd on August 05, 2010, 10:32:59 AM
Does anyone know the status of the portion of I-69 that would connect Henderson, KY and Evansville, IN?  I've read about plans for it in the local newspapers around there but haven't heard anything in a while.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on August 05, 2010, 12:49:49 PM
It's gonna have to be a toll bridge neither Indiana or Kentucky have the money to build it especially with the Louisville Bridges Project eating up tons of money.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on August 05, 2010, 11:32:16 PM
There's also the Brent Spence Bridge (I-71/75) replacement project that I-69 will/is competing against.  I would say that the I-69 bridge is the lowest priority of the major Ohio River bridge projects in Kentucky - but maybe higher over any new bridge near Wickliffe.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on August 12, 2010, 07:09:23 PM
Was reading in the latest STIP for Kentucky today that Kentucky must keep the feds abreast of the big dog projects in Kentucky aka Louisville Bridges Project, Brent Spence Bridge, I-69 and I-66. Of those I see the first two as definite in the next ten years and a maybe on the third and dead on the forth. Kentucky should use money intended for I-66 on I-65 (six laning and Jersey's) between Bowling Green and Elizabethtown which is very dangerous and scene of some horrific traffic accidents recently.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 13, 2010, 01:42:27 PM
Was reading in the latest STIP for Kentucky today that Kentucky must keep the feds abreast of the big dog projects in Kentucky aka Louisville Bridges Project, Brent Spence Bridge, I-69 and I-66. Of those I see the first two as definite in the next ten years and a maybe on the third and dead on the forth. Kentucky should use money intended for I-66 on I-65 (six laning and Jersey's) between Bowling Green and Elizabethtown which is very dangerous and scene of some horrific traffic accidents recently.

Seemed like I-65 was six lanes for most of the way from Nashville to Louisville when I drove it back in December.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on August 13, 2010, 02:14:04 PM
Was reading in the latest STIP for Kentucky today that Kentucky must keep the feds abreast of the big dog projects in Kentucky aka Louisville Bridges Project, Brent Spence Bridge, I-69 and I-66. Of those I see the first two as definite in the next ten years and a maybe on the third and dead on the forth. Kentucky should use money intended for I-66 on I-65 (six laning and Jersey's) between Bowling Green and Elizabethtown which is very dangerous and scene of some horrific traffic accidents recently.

Seemed like I-65 was six lanes for most of the way from Nashville to Louisville when I drove it back in December.

I-65 is six lanes from the state line north to the vicinity of Exit 43, which is the Cumberland Parkway, and then from Elizabethtown (Exit 93) to the state line. There is a 50-mile stretch that is four lanes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 13, 2010, 09:12:09 PM
Kentucky should use money intended for I-66 on I-65 (six laning and Jersey's) between Bowling Green and Elizabethtown which is very dangerous and scene of some horrific traffic accidents recently.

Seemed like I-65 was six lanes for most of the way from Nashville to Louisville when I drove it back in December.

I-65 is six lanes from the state line north to the vicinity of Exit 43, which is the Cumberland Parkway, and then from Elizabethtown (Exit 93) to the state line. There is a 50-mile stretch that is four lanes.

Thought I-65 was 6 lanes north Bowling Green, just couldn't remember where it ran out.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on August 16, 2010, 12:24:04 PM
That fifty mile stretch has been the area of some horrible crossovers. Earlier this year a Tractor Trailer crossed over just north of the six laning and killed 10 people in a Church van on the other side. I have seen plans for a five mile stretch starting next spring and they have slowly spit out the money for ROW and plans. But this area is in dire need of upgrades.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 20, 2010, 12:38:59 PM
Does anyone know the status of the portion of I-69 that would connect Henderson, KY and Evansville, IN?  I've read about plans for it in the local newspapers around there but haven't heard anything in a while.
Here's a link to an article in yesterday's Evansville Courier-Press which states that I-69 Ohio River Bridge funding split will be 2/3 Kentucky and 1/3 Indiana: http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/sep/18/no-headline---18a04i-69/

Quote
The total cost of the bridge and 13-mile section near Henderson is estimated at $1 billion, according to Ted Merryman, the I-69 Project Manager for Kentucky.
"Kentucky will be responsible for about two-thirds of the funding and Indiana will be responsible for a third of the funding," Merryman said in his overview presentation.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 12, 2011, 10:50:59 AM
"The total cost of the bridge and 13-mile section near Henderson is estimated at $1 billion, according to Ted Merryman, the I-69 Project Manager for Kentucky.
"Kentucky will be responsible for about two-thirds of the funding and Indiana will be responsible for a third of the funding," Merryman said in his overview presentation."
According to article in today's Evansville Courier Press, the cost estimate for the bridge plus the new roadway to tie into the Pennyrile Parkway has risen to $1.4 billion:

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/12/lobbyists-to-be-hired-for-i-69-bridge/

The article indicates that Western Kentucky and Indiana groups have hired Appian, Inc., an Indianapolis firm specializing in transportation lobbying, to lobby for federal funding for the project.  The groups concede that tolls will comprise part of the funding, but will only cover 26% to 43% of the cost.  The groups also acknowledge that, even with the lobbying effort starting now, the bridge is AT LEAST a decade away.

With that timetable, no telling how many billions of dollars the bridge would ultimately cost.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Daniel Fiddler on March 17, 2011, 03:59:31 PM
Was reading in the latest STIP for Kentucky today that Kentucky must keep the feds abreast of the big dog projects in Kentucky aka Louisville Bridges Project, Brent Spence Bridge, I-69 and I-66. Of those I see the first two as definite in the next ten years and a maybe on the third and dead on the forth. Kentucky should use money intended for I-66 on I-65 (six laning and Jersey's) between Bowling Green and Elizabethtown which is very dangerous and scene of some horrific traffic accidents recently.

I too agree with this statement.  I - 66 to me does not seem to be a feasible road.  I think the money spent for I - 66 would be better spent on completing the I - 65 widening as well as my proposed Cumberland Plateau Turnpike (see the section for fictional highways), which combined with the northern and eastern arcs of the Chattanooga Beltway (also in that section) would reduce the distance between Atlanta and Louisville by 75 miles.

I definitely support the Louisville bridges project because they badly need it and the I - 69 because it's essentially done except for the bridge between Evansville and Henderson and maybe a few interchange modifications.  The Brent Spence bridge I support more than I do I - 66 for sure, but not as high as I do the Louisville bridges, the I - 65 widening, or I - 69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on March 18, 2011, 09:46:08 PM
I put I-66 as dead because it has no polictical will behind it at this time. I-65 has a good chance at becoming a reality by this summer (read Scotty's Construction Company's unique offer to Kentucky).  The Bridges Project might get going by next year but I would prefer the East End first at six lanes to see how much traffic it can take off downtown Louisville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 01, 2011, 06:24:19 AM
During yesterday's announcement about I-69 signs going up in Kentucky this fall, Gov. Beshear was asked about the Ohio River Bridge.  Basically, he provided no real news other than speculation about the creation of a new authority to figure out financing for the project:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/sep/01/no-headline---ev_i69/

Quote
... However, the governor couldn’t forecast when the toughest portion of Kentucky’s I-69 project — financing and building a bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville, estimated a few years ago to cost $1.4 billion — will be completed or even begin.
Beshear said leaders in the Henderson-Evansville area likely will establish a special authority to develop a financing plan, as is already taking place for a planned pair of Ohio River bridges at Louisville ...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on December 15, 2011, 12:58:44 PM
The I-69 Ohio River Bridge is still touted as a top priority for western Kentucky, but financial reality and tough competition from other Ohio River bridge projects are also acknowledged:
http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=313573

Quote
The legislature has cut $1.3 billion out of the state budget over the past two-and-a-half years, state Sen. Dorsey Ridley told the Green River Area Development District's board of directors Wednesday.
"We've cut all the low-hanging fruit," the Henderson Democrat said. "Any additional cuts will be very difficult and will be long in healing."
"The next budget will be very difficult," Rep. Jim Gooch said. "The governor says it will likely be the most difficult we've faced." ...
Ridley said upgrading part of the Pennyrile, Western Kentucky and Purchase parkways to become I-69 and building a new bridge over the Ohio River at Henderson "is the next large infrastructure project for economic development in our area. But the bridge is the big cost factor."
Gooch warned that the I-69 bridge will be competing for funding with bridges in Louisville and northern Kentucky.
"It'll be very tough to do them all," he said ...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on December 31, 2011, 10:24:08 AM
My guess is this will be a Breezewood situation for many years to come. Too bad the existing US 41 bridge can't be used for I-69 for a while, but the situation on the Henderson side would make that nearly impossible. I assume KYTC will be the lead agency for the I-69 bridge and approach project, right (therefore responsible for financing it)?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on December 31, 2011, 10:39:42 AM
My guess is this will be a Breezewood situation for many years to come. Too bad the existing US 41 bridge can't be used for I-69 for a while, but the situation on the Henderson side would make that nearly impossible. I assume KYTC will be the lead agency for the I-69 bridge and approach project, right (therefore responsible for financing it)?
The approximate 15-month old link in post quoted below is still "live"; I assume 2/3 share means KYTC will take the lead:
Here's a link to an article in yesterday's Evansville Courier-Press which states that I-69 Ohio River Bridge funding split will be 2/3 Kentucky and 1/3 Indiana: http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/sep/18/no-headline---18a04i-69/
"The total cost of the bridge and 13-mile section near Henderson is estimated at $1 billion, according to Ted Merryman, the I-69 Project Manager for Kentucky.
"Kentucky will be responsible for about two-thirds of the funding and Indiana will be responsible for a third of the funding," Merryman said in his overview presentation."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on December 31, 2011, 11:02:05 AM
Yeah, that would make sense. So why would the Louisville bridge projects be split 50-50?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on January 01, 2012, 09:11:37 AM
I think they are split because Indiana has the money and wants to go now. Kentucky just wants to hide it's money problems. With the twin projects at least one will get done and that's the badly needed east end bridge. I think both states will be shocked how many folks use the east end bridge to travel to Louisville. I will use it to travel even to the Highlands area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 01, 2012, 10:58:14 AM
The presence of that bridge would certainly influence my choice of how to get to Indianapolis. I don't like I-75, but right now I-75 to I-275 to I-74 is my route of choice, primarily because of downtown Louisville. That East End Bridge would make me more likely to use I-65.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 19, 2012, 10:35:29 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jan/19/no-headline---ev_highways/) points out that the 2012 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/program-Management/pages/2012-recommended-highway-plan.aspx) does not propose any funding for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge over the next six years:
Quote
For the first time ever, a Kentucky governor is calling for replacing the narrow U.S. 60 bridge across the Green River at Spottsville.
It's among more than $250 million in highway projects Gov. Steve Beshear is proposing for Henderson, Union and Webster counties over the next six years, although much of the work is so far off that he will be out of office before dirt is turned.
The six-year road plan is subject to revision and approval by the 2012 General Assembly, currently in session.
Beshear's recommendations include rebuilding the Robards and Sebree interchanges on the Pennyrile/Breathitt Parkway to help prepare the parkway to become part of Interstate 69.
But no funding is proposed for an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville ...

Under Kentucky law, the governor sends a highway plan to the General Assembly every two years. It includes a blueprint for spending Road Fund revenues that will be appropriated in the new biennium — 2012-2014 in this case — and planning for the four "out years" beyond the biennium ...

Here are some highlights of the governor's proposal ...

I-69 routing: $1 million to review the planned route, or "alignment," for new I-69 roadway from the proposed Ohio River bridge to the Pennyrile/Breathitt Parkway.
Plans have called for the I-69 bridge to cross the river east of the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges and tie into the Pennyrile south of Henderson.
No funding is proposed for the bridge itself during the next six years ...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 06, 2012, 09:42:59 PM
"The total cost of the bridge and 13-mile section near Henderson is estimated at $1 billion, according to Ted Merryman, the I-69 Project Manager for Kentucky.
"Kentucky will be responsible for about two-thirds of the funding and Indiana will be responsible for a third of the funding," Merryman said in his overview presentation."
According to article in today's Evansville Courier Press, the cost estimate for the bridge plus the new roadway to tie into the Pennyrile Parkway has risen to $1.4 billion:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/12/lobbyists-to-be-hired-for-i-69-bridge/

Surprisingly, this March 6, 2012 article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/06/i-69-improvements-begin-on-western-ky-parkway/) provides a cost estimate for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge and the new roadway to connect to the Pennyrile that is significantly less than the above two estimates:

Quote
The most challenging link for I-69 in western Kentucky will be constructing a new bridge across the Ohio River east of Henderson and constructing new roadway to connect the bridge with the Pennyrile south of town. The project has been projected to cost $600 million to $800 million, a funding challenge that Kentucky and Indiana officials haven't resolved.

I suppose it is possible that the $600 million to $800 million estimate is for the bridge alone, although the wording in the article seems to indicate otherwise.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Stephane Dumas on March 12, 2012, 10:01:25 AM
Too bad then we didn't have a time machine, we could had gone back in time to convince KYDOT to end the Pennyrile parkway just south of the bridge instead of the current end or telling KTDOT to do more acquisitions during that era to upgrade that little gap of US-41 into full freeway with service roads.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on March 12, 2012, 07:38:18 PM
I think if you want to point fingers, go back to pre-1968 when Indiana and Kentucky were applying for a share of the 1500 new interstate mileage that added to the system at that time.  The original proposal for I-63/I-164 was to build a new Ohio River Bridge and to connect to US 41/ Pennyrile Pkwy, fairly close to the current I-69 proposal.

From my understanding, the Feds truncated that more ambitious plan back to a 12-mile spur between I-64 SR 66/Division Street.  Indiana originally applied to construct an I-63 from south of the Ohio River north to Brazil, IN, providing a route to Indianapolis, via I-70 the rest of the way.  I-164 got its proposed route extended from Division St. to US 41 south of Evansville around 1980.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 12, 2012, 10:59:29 PM
The parallel US 41 bridge wasn't built until the late 1960s. Perhaps they should have built a new four-lane span elsewhere and left the US 41 crossing as a two-lane one.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 11, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/12/lobbyists-to-be-hired-for-i-69-bridge/
The article indicates that Western Kentucky and Indiana groups have hired Appian, Inc., an Indianapolis firm specializing in transportation lobbying, to lobby for federal funding for the project. The groups concede that tolls will comprise part of the funding, but will only cover 26% to 43% of the cost.

This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/apr/09/no-headline---ebj_chamberfromthepresident/) seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge:
(1) get I-69 to be designated a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill, (2) have the Federal Highway Administration appoint a national Interstate 69 Project Manager, (3) maintain that the I-69 Ohio River crossing is important in both regional and national terms, (4) emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges, as well as the fact that they are neither tornado nor earthquake proof, and (5) emphasize the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both of the US 41 bridges would have on the regional economy. Apparently, the thinking is that all of the above would make the I-69 Ohio River Bridge a high priority for a FHWA I-69 Project Manager.

Quote
I am writing this letter to you on the morning (significance to come) of Tuesday, Feb. 29, one day after returning from a trip to Washington, D.C., with a delegation of business leaders from Southwest Indiana and Northwest Kentucky to discuss our region's needs with federal officials. Our visit had a heavy focus on advocating for the completion of Interstate 69 within Indiana and Kentucky, as well as along the entire national corridor, and construction of a new Ohio River bridge linking Evansville to Henderson.
The visit included a luncheon meeting that was attended by influencers from many parts of the eight state I-69 corridor. Speakers included Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas; Gov. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky; Congressman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky; Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear; Indiana Department of Transportation Commissioner Michael Cline; Jennifer Shepard, executive director of the Alliance for I-69 in Texas; and Mike Schopmeyer, past chairman of the board of directors for The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana.
During visits with our elected officials to discuss the highway and bridge project, we stayed on message. Key points of our discussions included:
Designate Interstate 69 a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill. This designation will make segments of the highway throughout the corridor eligible for programmatic funding from the Federal Highway Administration and partially mitigate the need for lawmakers to ask for large earmarks to help build the road;
Have the Federal Highway Administration appoint an Interstate 69 Project Manager. This has been done in the past for other multistate highway projects and there is enough progress being made along the entire national corridor — and awareness of the importance of the project to the nation's economic competitiveness — that a Project Manager is warranted;
The construction of a new bridge between Evansville and Henderson is critically important not only to our economic region, but the entire multistate corridor;
The importance of tolling and allowing public/private partnerships to be established to help fund our nation's infrastructure needs.
The Bi-State Vietnam Gold Star Bridges, or more commonly referred to as the twin bridges by those of us who call the region home, were also discussed fairly extensively during our visit. We talked about the age of the bridges (northbound bridge was built in 1932; southbound bridge was built in 1966), quality of construction, usage (approximately 40,000 vehicles per day), the fact that the bridges are not earthquake or tornado proof, and the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both bridges would have on our regional economy.
Which brings me full circle to the significance of the morning of February 29. Most of us watched in a state of great concern as the weather forecasters told us of an approaching tornado, while warning sirens wailed in the distance. It was a few minutes before 6 a.m. The tornado was taking aim at our fellow citizens and the twin bridges. I could hardly believe that I had just returned from Washington, D.C., to discuss our infrastructure needs the evening before, and was now sitting in my family room watching a very serious storm approach. Thankfully a catastrophe was avoided. No lives were lost. Property damage was significant but not great. The twin bridges remained standing.
We need a new bridge. We will make it happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on April 12, 2012, 06:59:14 AM
This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/apr/09/no-headline---ebj_chamberfromthepresident/) seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge:
(1) get I-69 to be designated a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill, (2) have the Federal Highway Administration appoint a national Interstate 69 Project Manager, (3) maintain that the I-69 Ohio River crossing is important in both regional and national terms, (4) emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges, as well as the fact that they are neither tornado nor earthquake proof, and (5) emphasize the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both of the US 41 bridges would have on the regional economy. Apparently, the thinking is that all of the above would make the I-69 Ohio River Bridge a high priority for a FHWA I-69 Project Manager.

Has there ever been a project manager at the national level to handle an interstate project that spans multiple states or any other infrastructure project?

Maybe I-49 should be handled in this way, too.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on April 12, 2012, 05:15:18 PM
Having a dedicated FHWA Project Manager is a legitimate management strategy and has been used on several projects in the past.  On a bi-state project either a PM is appointed and works with both states' FHWA staff; or, one of the state FHWA divisions takes it on with its regular staff as the lead, with the other state a FHWA cooperating partner.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on April 14, 2012, 09:21:22 AM
If having a FHWA Project Manager speeds it up all the better. Hopefully by 2015 the drive is ready.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sr641 on May 07, 2012, 11:48:24 AM
I would never drive on the i69 toll bridge. Id take the old us 41 one evey time
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on May 07, 2012, 08:33:33 PM
I would never drive on the i69 toll bridge. Id take the old us 41 one evey time

we dont care because you dont use punctuation or grammer
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: truejd on May 08, 2012, 10:59:18 PM
The correct spelling is "grammar".
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on May 08, 2012, 11:06:00 PM
The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 09, 2012, 10:26:42 PM
The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point
There were no points .... in your posts
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on May 19, 2012, 02:15:44 AM
The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point
There were no points .... in your posts

Speaking of hammering home a point, Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke wants leaders in both Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky to repeatedly stress the importance of the I-69 Ohio River Bridge (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/may/10/evansville-mayor-wants-to-see-more-cooperation/) to their respective congressional delegations in order to eventually get federal money/assistance to make the bridge a reality:

Quote
New Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke is calling for increased cooperation between his city of Evansville and Henderson on issues ranging from economic development to establishing a mass transit connection between the cities .... "Over the years, we've become much more aware of the importance of approaching economic development from a more regional standpoint," he said .... "I think we are at the point where we can step back and say, OK, what's the next step? What's the next logical phase to take this to our region, and not just four counties in southwestern Indiana, so our region — the Tri-state — can truly benefit," Winnecke said .... Meanwhile, concerning the challenges of securing funds for an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River from Evansville to Henderson, Winnecke said, "each community needs to be lobbying our respective congressional delegations to make sure this is a priority for both Henderson and Evansville." ....

In other words, work like crazy on both fronts to get the Indiana and Kentucky delegations to push hard for the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on May 19, 2012, 12:40:27 PM
The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point
There were no points .... in your posts

And never use apostrophe's in your plural's.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on May 19, 2012, 12:42:22 PM
in less your a greengrocer
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sr641 on May 20, 2012, 10:23:16 AM
I would still never drve on the I69 toll bridge over the Ohio River. They should just use the US 41 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on May 20, 2012, 10:43:43 AM
The bridge isn't to interstate standards.  And though it's on the level where I would say "just use it and not care", I don't think the FHWA agrees with me.  Plus the road on either side is just a surface street, and it would probably cost more to upgrade than to build a new alignment.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: adt1982 on May 20, 2012, 02:51:13 PM
I would still never drve on the I69 toll bridge over the Ohio River. They should just use the US 41 bridge.
Oh, I don't know.  It might be nice to have a bridge that actually has shoulders and meets interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on May 20, 2012, 03:13:23 PM
Believe me, as somebody who lived in Evansville for many years and still has family connections there, they need a second crossing very badly, even if I-69 weren't built, they still need another crossing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on May 21, 2012, 12:26:01 AM
Believe me, as somebody who lived in Evansville for many years and still has family connections there, they need a second crossing very badly, even if I-69 weren't built, they still need another crossing.

I drove across the bridges when they had the 3+1 configuration going for repairs a few years ago. The backups on both sides of the bridge were lengthy, even though there were still four lanes available for travel. Anytime there is some sort of incident on the bridge or on either side, especially the south side, I hear traffic gets dog-knotted.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on May 21, 2012, 09:38:14 AM
On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on May 21, 2012, 12:08:07 PM
I would favor I-164 becoming I-69 to the point where the new terrain road connecting to the bridge veers south. From that point west to US 41, it could be marked as "TO I-69", and US 41 could also be marked the same for that matter. When/if the new bridge is built, I agree something like I-169 would work nicely for the 2-3 miles left over. It jus needs to not duplicate one of the numbers kentucky already has planned.

Personally, I don't see why this changeover to I-69 shouldn't happen when the new terrain I-69 to Crane is opened. Other than new shields, mile markers, and exit numbers not much would need to be done. It would be pretty inexpensive.

What exists today around Henderson is a Breezewood situation with long backups at certain times of the day. The proposed I-69 connector on the Kentucky side from the existing Pennyrile to the new bridge seems like it will be pretty long. I wonder how long this will take to be built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sd72667 on May 21, 2012, 04:48:01 PM
I would favor I-164 becoming I-69 to the point where the new terrain road connecting to the bridge veers south. From that point west to US 41, it could be marked as "TO I-69", and US 41 could also be marked the same for that matter. When/if the new bridge is built, I agree something like I-169 would work nicely for the 2-3 miles left over. It jus needs to not duplicate one of the numbers kentucky already has planned.

Personally, I don't see why this changeover to I-69 shouldn't happen when the new terrain I-69 to Crane is opened. Other than new shields, mile markers, and exit numbers not much would need to be done. It would be pretty inexpensive.

What exists today around Henderson is a Breezewood situation with long backups at certain times of the day. The proposed I-69 connector on the Kentucky side from the existing Pennyrile to the new bridge seems like it will be pretty long. I wonder how long this will take to be built.
I think once the link from EV to Bloominton is open, there will be more movement to get a bridge finished right around the Green River Rd exit to the south. I'm sure they will obviously stay west where the Green River flows into the Ohio River. After looking at Google Maps, it's a straight shot to the Pennyrile from I-164, almost all farm fields. I hope it will be finished by the time Bloomington-Indy is finished.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on May 21, 2012, 08:53:04 PM
On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on May 22, 2012, 04:33:41 AM
Back in the 1970s when many Interstates were still being built, some states liberally signed the gaps with "TO I-xx" (where that was equal to or was the primary designation). The entire stretch of I-69 from Indy to Bloomington and from Evansville to Madisonville could be signed that way. For that matter, it could be signed as such down to Memphis.

I guess it comes down to the question of whether or not the corridor is close enough to being a viable long distance alternative to existing Interstates. The section of SR 37 in Indy and US 41 in Henderson are slow and congested, but they are also pretty short. I would say a case could be made to for that strategy if it is allowed. Is there any guidance on that? Did that require FHWA approval?

If that is not allowed, then I can see the argument for leaving I-164 as is, but am still not convinced a long spur to the north designated I-69 and a shorter spur to the south marked as I-164 is any better than the entire 115 miles or so having the same number.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on May 22, 2012, 05:31:43 PM
On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.
I assume the same reason I-181 became I-26.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on May 22, 2012, 07:50:28 PM
On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.
I assume the same reason I-181 became I-26.
But that's different, because there's no planned extension of the highway. In this case, the rest of I-69 is coming along soon anyway. You'll have to change all the signs to reflect that the route continues past Evansville. You'll have to change mile markers and exit numbers because the new route won't hook around in a J shape.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 23, 2012, 11:26:51 PM
During yesterday's announcement about I-69 signs going up in Kentucky this fall, Gov. Beshear was asked about the Ohio River Bridge.  Basically, he provided no real news other than speculation about the creation of a new authority to figure out financing for the project:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/sep/01/no-headline---ev_i69/
Quote
... However, the governor couldn’t forecast when the toughest portion of Kentucky’s I-69 project — financing and building a bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville, estimated a few years ago to cost $1.4 billion — will be completed or even begin.
Beshear said leaders in the Henderson-Evansville area likely will establish a special authority to develop a financing plan, as is already taking place for a planned pair of Ohio River bridges at Louisville ...
This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/apr/09/no-headline---ebj_chamberfromthepresident/) seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge ... emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges

In this opinion piece (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/23/time-to-move-on-new-i-69-bridge/), representatives from Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, in addition to emphasizing the age of the US 41 twin bridges, emphasize the increased traffic that the US 41 twin bridges will have to handle because of the progress made on I-69 in both Kentucky and Indiana:

Quote
This month, I-69 advocacy groups from Indiana and Kentucky — Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky (C-LINK) — will meet in an annual joint session, bringing together community leaders from both sides of the river in a continued effort to advance the project that will provide new opportunities to all eight states in the I-69 corridor .... While the two groups have much to celebrate, their work will continue on a critical, yet still missing link: a new I-69 Ohio River bridge connecting Evansville, Ind., and Henderson, Ky.
At this time we are covered by two bridges, one northbound and one southbound, between Evansville and Henderson. These vital links see heavy traffic daily from local commuters, local business traffic and cross state commerce.
In the months and years ahead, as I-69 is completed in Indiana and Kentucky, this traffic will increase.
The Bi-State Vietnam Gold Star Twin Bridges have served our communities well. The east bridge was completed in 1932. The west bridge was open to traffic in 1966.
As sturdy and durable as these bridges have proven to be, they are getting old and will be further strained by increased I-69 traffic.
A new bridge project of this scope takes years and even decades to complete. As the bridges continue to age, interstate highway traffic will travel the bridges and through Henderson's U.S. 41 until our two states prioritize the identification of funding and construction of a new link.
The time to act is now. Hoosier Voices for I-69 and C-LINK encourage the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to continue work on forming the bi-state authority needed to construct the bridge and advance the appropriate studies necessary to gain federal approval.
The Evansville and Henderson metropolitan areas need this vital link to support the demands of a new interstate, provide relief to aging bridges and enhance the economic vitality of our region.

The advocacy groups for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge seem to be pursuing a steady public relations campaign for construction of the bridge.  Both INDOT and KYTC still have a lot on their respective plates, but it does seem like now would be a good time to at least form a bi-state authority and begin the process for revisiting the environmental review process.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 30, 2012, 11:46:28 PM
In this opinion piece (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/23/time-to-move-on-new-i-69-bridge/), representatives from Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, in addition to emphasizing the age of the US 41 twin bridges, emphasize the increased traffic that the US 41 twin bridges will have to handle because of the progress made on I-69 in both Kentucky and Indiana:
Quote
The time to act is now. Hoosier Voices for I-69 and C-LINK encourage the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to continue work on forming the bi-state authority needed to construct the bridge and advance the appropriate studies necessary to gain federal approval.

David Dixon, editor of the Henderson Gleaner, (http://www.courierpress.com/staff/david-dixon/) seconds the call for creating the bi-state authority in this editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/30/another-vote-for-action-on-bridge/). He also injects a sense of urgency to do so because of perceived competition for funding with the replacement for the Brent Spence bridge in the Cincinnati area:

Quote
Every once in a while I read something in the paper that I'd like to add an exclamation mark to. That was the case last Sunday when a guest column appeared concerning Interstate 69.
The point was: Now's the time to get moving on a new I-69 bridge between Henderson and Evansville.
We're not talking about moving dirt or even making drawings, but creating the bi-state commission that needs to be set up before anything else can happen. Let's get it done. ....
They called on the two states' transportation departments "to continue work on forming the bi-state authority needed to construct the bridge and advance the appropriate studies necessary to gain federal approval."
It takes a long, long time to get a bridge studied, funded, studied some more, designed, studied a little more and finally built. The sooner we get started, the better.
There's another reason to act now.
With plans for two new bridges in the Louisville area moving forward, it looks like the next emphasis by the powers that be will be on either our bridge or one replacing the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Northern Kentucky with Cincinnati.

Competing for attention with a big town like Cincinnati and Kentucky's Golden Triangle will be tough. Working in our favor is what seems to be a realization down here that in this day and age it's not going to happen without putting tolls on the bridge ....
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 05, 2012, 08:57:08 PM
Quote
We're not talking about moving dirt or even making drawings, but creating the bi-state commission that needs to be set up before anything else can happen. Let's get it done. .... it looks like the next emphasis by the powers that be will be on either our bridge or one replacing the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Northern Kentucky with Cincinnati.
Competing for attention with a big town like Cincinnati and Kentucky's Golden Triangle will be tough. Working in our favor is what seems to be a realization down here that in this day and age it's not going to happen without putting tolls on the bridge ....

This Indiana Public Media article (http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/i69-toll-bridge-expected-connect-indiana-kentucky-32500/#channel=f275605ece0162&origin=http%3A%2F%2Findianapublicmedia.org&channel_path=%2Fnews%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fdisqus-comment-system%2Fxd_receiver.htm%3Ffb_xd_fragment%23xd_sig%3Df3b127fe4b9667%26) expressly mentions a public-private patnership as probably being a component of using tolling as a funding mechanism for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge:

Quote
Plans for a bridge connecting Interstate 69 from Indiana to Kentucky are in the works.
The bridge, although it’s likely still many years from completion, is a joint project between the two states.
Executive Director of Hoosier Voices for I-69 Morgan Hutton says the new bridge will probably be funded through a public-private partnership, and become a toll-bridge.
“In this reality with gas tax revenues declining, which is the typical transportation funding mechanism, both sides of the river, in both Kentucky and Indiana, there is an acceptance that a toll may be needed to get that bridge completed,“ she says.

The slow-but-steady PR campaign continues ...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSF on July 05, 2012, 10:13:49 PM
If it is a dollar or so each way for cash and far less for electronic tolls, i'd pay that toll to avoid Henderson/Evansville and the corridor of traffic llights from the start of the Pennyrile to I-64. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on July 06, 2012, 02:51:41 PM
Agree on that as I have many a late night cursing those lights. Traveling from STL to Bowling Green, Ky always involved those darn lights.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on August 02, 2012, 12:55:48 PM
Business leaders continue to talk about the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  First, however, this opinion piece (http://www.tristate-media.com/warrick/community/community_news/article_41a748f6-dbdc-11e1-b05c-0019bb2963f4.html) has the Executive Director of the Warrick County Chamber of Commerce recounting a tour she had recently taken of I-69 construction in southern Indiana:

Quote
Last Friday, I had an opportunity to tour the construction along the new Interstate 69 route. As one travels north on I-164 and it turns into I-69, you can see the interstate stretch northward, it calls to be driven on and the opportunity to do just that was well worth being outside on a hot July day.
Our group, a mixture of business and government leaders, along with INDOT staff, met at S.R. 68 just past the “do not enter, road closed” sign to begin our tour.
We traveled along the new interstate, taking some temporary off road trails to get around a couple of bridge structures still under construction. The lack of rain in this area has been a benefit to the construction companies as they work toward the planned November opening of sections 1 through 3 of I-69. It is amazing to see the progress on the road. After months of heavy earth moving, pavement is now going down at a quick pace. When traveling the interstate at 70 miles per hour, you don’t take notice of the detail that goes into the construction of each mile. Along one bridge, we stopped and were able to get up close to view the details of the expansion joints in the guardrails. They actually slide up to six inches to account for the bridge railing expanding and contracting with the temperature fluctuations of the day. ...

Hmmm... I wonder if INDOT would give a tour to a roadgeek group for up-close-and-personal observations?

Back to the bridge ... The Executive Director is not satisfied with just the current construction; she is also beating the drum for the bridge:

Quote
The completion of Interstate 69 has been a business and government goal for years. With the opening of the next sections it is ever important that we continue to work with business and government across the region and the Ohio River to link I-69 in Kentucky with I-69 in Indiana. This further expands our regional economic growth.

Staying on message...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on August 02, 2012, 05:39:35 PM
Hmmm... I wonder if INDOT would give a tour to a roadgeek group for up-close-and-personal observations?

I would not be too surprised if they would. This is a big PR thing - both to counter the anti-I-69 opinions and to build support for spending money to complete it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 20, 2012, 03:52:57 PM
With I-69 now completed from Evansville to Crane, and scheduled for completion from Crane to Bloomington in a couple of years, this TV video report (http://tristatehomepage.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=563402) examines the question of what should come next: I-69 from Bloomington-to-Indianapolis or the I-69 Ohio River bridge from Evansville to Henderson. Indiana Lieutenant Governor Elect Sue Ellsperman seems to indicate that Indiana wants to finish Bloomigton to Indianapolis first and then build the bridge:

Quote
"First and foremost," said Ellsperman, "we have to do our part, which is to get this completed and get the segments completed through Indianapolis [a]nd then absolutely working with our neighbors in Kentucky because the benefits are good for all of our communities."

The video has some footage of the US 41 twin bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 20, 2012, 05:04:02 PM
I think they're going to see a lot more need for the Ohio River crossing to be next in line.  Traffic's bad now (at drive times) on 41 between Evansville and Henderson, and it's only going to get worse.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on November 20, 2012, 05:16:42 PM
The problem here is that border that runs along the river. If there was one government that was concerned with the development of the whole region, there might be priority for the bridge. As it is, you've got one government in Indianapolis and another in Frankfort that see things differently. The folks in Indy in particular see connecting SW Indiana to Indy as the higher priority.

As someone who has driven US-41 between Evansville and Henderson, I see the need for the new bridge. I'm just trying to be realistic. I doubt that this bridge goes anywhere until the Louisville crossings are done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 20, 2012, 09:13:19 PM
The problem here is that border that runs along the river. If there was one government that was concerned with the development of the whole region, there might be priority for the bridge. As it is, you've got one government in Indianapolis and another in Frankfort that see things differently. The folks in Indy in particular see connecting SW Indiana to Indy as the higher priority.

As someone who has driven US-41 between Evansville and Henderson, I see the need for the new bridge. I'm just trying to be realistic. I doubt that this bridge goes anywhere until the Louisville crossings are done.

A replacement or companion for the Brent Spence Bridge (I-71 and I-75) at Cincinnati is a higher priority for Kentucky than a new I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 20, 2012, 09:33:19 PM
The problem here is that border that runs along the river. If there was one government that was concerned with the development of the whole region, there might be priority for the bridge. As it is, you've got one government in Indianapolis and another in Frankfort that see things differently. The folks in Indy in particular see connecting SW Indiana to Indy as the higher priority.

As someone who has driven US-41 between Evansville and Henderson, I see the need for the new bridge. I'm just trying to be realistic. I doubt that this bridge goes anywhere until the Louisville crossings are done.

The Evansville paper had an online poll yesterday and building it to Bloomington got 60% of the vote for top priority. The new bridge received only 9%. Other responses were should not have been built, US 41/I-70 was better, and l can't believe they built it. Anyway, the bridge will not be built anytime soon.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 20, 2012, 10:08:56 PM
Everyone up and down the river might as well hook up to the idea of paying tolls when they do finally get around to building the new bridges.  It's going to be the only way of getting anything done, unless someone has a better idea.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on November 21, 2012, 11:48:45 AM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 21, 2012, 01:06:16 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 21, 2012, 05:50:44 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

You'd get no argument here on that ... I think the East End bridge will ease a lot of pain downtown.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on November 21, 2012, 07:53:09 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

I said "I-69 bridge".  The REST of the route is what they're working on.

The people in Owensboro disagree about the bridge priorities.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 21, 2012, 08:50:00 PM
I took a look at the 2012 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/program-Management/pages/2012-recommended-highway-plan.aspx) to see what's projected for I-69 from FY 2012 to FY 2018.
New Terrain: A baby step - 2012 Project Review to locate the I-69 alignment around Henderson from the Pennyrile Parkway to the Ohio River Crossing (page 54/136 of pdf; page 54 of document).
(above quote from I-69 in KY (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg131151#msg131151) thread)

Since several years have passed since it was issued, I thought some might enjoy taking a look at the Executive Summary of the 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I-69 between Evansville and Henderson (http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/executive%20summary.pdf). Here is a map of the Alternatives that were considered (page 13/23 of pdf; page S-13 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/h8WNT.jpg)

Alternative 2 was identified as the Preferred Alternative (page 23/23 of pdf; page S-23 of document):

Quote
In summary, Alternatives 1, 1A, 2, and 3 each have their own unique impacts. However, Alternative 2 performs strongly in meeting the project purpose and need, requires fewer acres of right-of-way and farmland than the western alternatives, utilizes 18 miles of existing Interstate highway, requires the fewest residential and business relocations, has the fewest number of adverse historical impacts, and is the least costly alternative. Given this comprehensive evaluation of impacts, Alternative 2 is identified as the preferred alternative.

Does anyone know if KYTC has started the Project Review for the alignment around Henderson? - edit - I recently received an email reply to this question from KYTC (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg187836#msg187836):

Quote
... The project you referenced in your question is in the early stages of planning.  The Recommended Highway Plan has money set aside for its construction in 2019.  This is a target construction date and at this time we are uncertain as to if that date is realistic or not.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 21, 2012, 09:13:28 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

I said "I-69 bridge".  The REST of the route is what they're working on.

The people in Owensboro disagree about the bridge priorities.

This person in Owensboro wants a new I-69 bridge ASAP.  The leaders here who want the I-67 pie-in-the-sky don't represent all of us.  Some of us actually think what we have is fine and aren't greedy for more, especially when there's a more pressing need just to the west of us.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on November 21, 2012, 10:55:27 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

I said "I-69 bridge".  The REST of the route is what they're working on.

The people in Owensboro disagree about the bridge priorities.

I don't even think you even live in the area, and merely want to see blue lines drawn on a map to satisfy your self road interests.

The current US 41 bridges are adequate and structurally fine. They may not be ten lanes wide with full shoulders, but serve the area well and have done so for decades. This is not a high priority project because US 41, a four lane highway with minimal intrusions, is not a significant burden to through traffic, and it is also cost prohibitive.

There are other projects that were developed far earlier and are much further along the design-review-construction process. They include,
a) The Ohio River Bridges Project, which includes the new I-65 Downtown Bridge, the I-265 East End Bridge and Tunnel, and the reconstructed I-64/65/71 interchange. This is a $4 billion project that will be tolled due to its expense. There are two functional interstate crossings in Louisville, and the Sherman Minton carries 80,000 per day while the Kennedy Bridge 122,300 per day - or 106% of its original design capacity.
b) The Brent Spence Bridge Project, which includes a new I-75 bridge separate from the existing facility. It is projected to cost nearly $2 billion and there is no funding. It has not yet received authorization for tolling, although both governors of Kentucky and Ohio are supportive of open-road tolling measures. The Brent Spence Bridge carries over 158,000 per day.

The US 41 bridges carry a combined 37,178 per day, a 2010 estimate. That is nowhere near their total design capacity.

And US 41 is between Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky - not Owensboro.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 21, 2012, 11:28:27 PM
I also do not live in that area, but my perspective is that the existing bridges, despite some deficiencies, are fine, but US 41 through Henderson is a huge problem. I thought upgrading US 41 in Henderson would be acceptable, but apparently KYTC thinks otherwise. They understand the situation far better than I do.

FWIW, it took me 30 minutes to go through Henderson last May. Unless that was unusual, that is a problem. I-69 will soon approach from the north and south so something needs to get done because it will get worse otherwise.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 21, 2012, 11:38:06 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

I said "I-69 bridge".  The REST of the route is what they're working on.

The people in Owensboro disagree about the bridge priorities.

I don't even think you even live in the area, and merely want to see blue lines drawn on a map to satisfy your self road interests.

The current US 41 bridges are adequate and structurally fine. They may not be ten lanes wide with full shoulders, but serve the area well and have done so for decades. This is not a high priority project because US 41, a four lane highway with minimal intrusions, is not a significant burden to through traffic, and it is also cost prohibitive.

There are other projects that were developed far earlier and are much further along the design-review-construction process. They include,
a) The Ohio River Bridges Project, which includes the new I-65 Downtown Bridge, the I-265 East End Bridge and Tunnel, and the reconstructed I-64/65/71 interchange. This is a $4 billion project that will be tolled due to its expense. There are two functional interstate crossings in Louisville, and the Sherman Minton carries 80,000 per day while the Kennedy Bridge 122,300 per day - or 106% of its original design capacity.
b) The Brent Spence Bridge Project, which includes a new I-75 bridge separate from the existing facility. It is projected to cost nearly $2 billion and there is no funding. It has not yet received authorization for tolling, although both governors of Kentucky and Ohio are supportive of open-road tolling measures. The Brent Spence Bridge carries over 158,000 per day.

The US 41 bridges carry a combined 37,178 per day, a 2010 estimate. That is nowhere near their total design capacity.

And US 41 is between Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky - not Owensboro.

I didn't realize the VPD count was that low on the Twin Bridges.  Feels like more when you're sitting in the middle of it, I guess! (LOL!)

It's NOT unusual for it to take a considerable amount of time to go through Henderson.  A minor fender-bender on the NB bridge or near Ellis Park or Waterworks Road can easily back things up past the KY-351 Zion exit for a long period of time, although I think that's more a (dys)function of accident cleanup than anything safety related.  Even when things are moving, though, at drive times (AM & PM), it's not unheard of for it to take 15 minutes or more to get through.

I think KYTC needs to do some studying of the road as it now stands and maybe make some minor changes, like retiming signals, limiting left turns to intersections only, combining access points, things like that.

But I'm not a traffic engineer ... I just call things as I see 'em.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 21, 2012, 11:48:35 PM
Unfortunately, it will take more than minor changes. That road will never be efficient. That is probably why they proposed the new bridge and route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 22, 2012, 12:09:35 AM
I have to agree ... but hopefully they can do some "band-aid" work to perhaps make what's there work a little better until that gets done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on November 22, 2012, 12:59:09 AM
I agree that the bridges can handle the current traffic loads, and even a little more, but there certainly needs to be some changes.

I think a much quicker and cost effective response would be to elevate US 41 through the so called Henderson strip. This 3 mile section would be an urban freeway, with frontage lanes immediately below the highway on each side. Two interchanges, one at Watson Lane and the other at Marywood Drive. Eliminate the cross at the Wolf Hills Road.

On the north side of the river, northbound exit into Ellis Park, southbound exit at Trocodero and follow existing road under the highway near the bridges and back into Ellis Park. Eliminate the cross at Waterworks Road.  That road really serves no purpose that can't be accomplished with Veterans Parkway, and it is a very dangerous intersection.

I think this can be done in the near future at a fraction of the cost of new highway and bridges, and accomplish what is needed for the immediate time. When funds are available down the road, a new bridge can be built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 22, 2012, 01:58:34 AM
I agree that the bridges can handle the current traffic loads, and even a little more, but there certainly needs to be some changes.

I think a much quicker and cost effective response would be to elevate US 41 through the so called Henderson strip. This 3 mile section would be an urban freeway, with frontage lanes immediately below the highway on each side. Two interchanges, one at Watson Lane and the other at Marywood Drive. Eliminate the cross at the Wolf Hills Road.

On the north side of the river, northbound exit into Ellis Park, southbound exit at Trocodero and follow existing road under the highway near the bridges and back into Ellis Park. Eliminate the cross at Waterworks Road.  That road really serves no purpose that can't be accomplished with Veterans Parkway, and it is a very dangerous intersection.

I think this can be done in the near future at a fraction of the cost of new highway and bridges, and accomplish what is needed for the immediate time. When funds are available down the road, a new bridge can be built.

Good ideas, Cap'n.  I like your thinking.  I wonder what elevating 41 through there would cost.  I'm definitely in favor of your Ellis Park/Trocadero and Waterworks Road ideas.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on November 22, 2012, 09:12:10 AM
Yeah, it's definitely lower priority than the Louisville bridges (for both IN & KY), the I-75 bridge (for KY), and upgrading SR 37 to I-69 (for IN).

Once I-69 is complete in IN & KY except for the bridge, I think there will be more pressure to finish it, but you're not going to get a sizeable increase in traffic until I-69 reaches Memphis.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on November 22, 2012, 09:53:03 AM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

I said "I-69 bridge".  The REST of the route is what they're working on.

The people in Owensboro disagree about the bridge priorities.

I don't even think you even live in the area, and merely want to see blue lines drawn on a map to satisfy your self road interests.

The current US 41 bridges are adequate and structurally fine. They may not be ten lanes wide with full shoulders, but serve the area well and have done so for decades. This is not a high priority project because US 41, a four lane highway with minimal intrusions, is not a significant burden to through traffic, and it is also cost prohibitive.

There are other projects that were developed far earlier and are much further along the design-review-construction process. They include,
a) The Ohio River Bridges Project, which includes the new I-65 Downtown Bridge, the I-265 East End Bridge and Tunnel, and the reconstructed I-64/65/71 interchange. This is a $4 billion project that will be tolled due to its expense. There are two functional interstate crossings in Louisville, and the Sherman Minton carries 80,000 per day while the Kennedy Bridge 122,300 per day - or 106% of its original design capacity.
b) The Brent Spence Bridge Project, which includes a new I-75 bridge separate from the existing facility. It is projected to cost nearly $2 billion and there is no funding. It has not yet received authorization for tolling, although both governors of Kentucky and Ohio are supportive of open-road tolling measures. The Brent Spence Bridge carries over 158,000 per day.

The US 41 bridges carry a combined 37,178 per day, a 2010 estimate. That is nowhere near their total design capacity.

And US 41 is between Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky - not Owensboro.
I'm going by posters here - and Owensboro is nearby.  You're the only one that thinks US 41 is fine.

The other projects are further along because KY doesn't care two bits about the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  At the rate they are going, it will never be built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 22, 2012, 12:26:29 PM
The other projects are further along because KY doesn't care two bits about the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  At the rate they are going, it will never be built.

You're wrong again. Kentucky does care about the new bridge, and the I-69 corridor as a whole, but there are other priorities.

As for the existing US 41, the problem is not really with the bridges, although any work done on them can really put traffic in a stranglehold (I see the media advisories and the resulting discussions whenever there's an issue). The problem is the four-lane surface route along "The Strip," as they call it locally. Maybe doing RIROs along the strip and putting in a couple of U-turns would be a short-term fix. The lane adds/drops at the US 60 interchange are also a bit non-standard.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on November 23, 2012, 12:46:39 PM
They seem to be giving no indication of movement on the project, though.  Up here in NY that means a project is dead.  At the rate they're going, I-86 will be finished before this bridge, which is pretty impressive considering that I don't think it will be done until 2025-2030.

Or do things move faster in KY?  I'm used to major projects taking 10-20 years just to get an EIS done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on November 24, 2012, 11:26:43 AM
Since you are in New York - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you really have no clue as to where Owensboro is in relation to US 41. It's over 30 miles to the east, and that town is well served by US 231's crossing of the Ohio River - which is a non-freeway, and the parkways that feed into it.

As for Henderson, the US 60 strip is deficient in that it is not free flowing, but it was never designed to be a freeway. A right-in-right-out situation would make the road more efficient and would be cost effective. If this alignment is bypassed, then upgrading it further in-place would not be necessary.

Here is the six-year highway plan that expired FY 2012:

I-69; PERFORM A FINANCIAL PLANNING STUDY FOR NEW I-69 OHIO RIVER CROSSING AT HENDERSON/EVANSVILLE. 2007

And:

"The development of a new river crossing has been recently proposed as part of a federally sponsored environmental study for routing the proposed Interstate 69 corridor across the Ohio River near Henderson. The KYTC will work to initiate a financial plan to outline a strategy of innovative financing for project development that will allow for the ultimate advancement of this proposed corridor. Future I-69 development plans will involve the Pennyrile, Western and Purchase Parkways. To help maintain these critical parkway corridors, the KYTC will continue pavement rehabilitation activities to improve and upgrade pavement conditions on these routes. The Enacted FY 2007-2012 Six-Year Highway Plan contains $17 million for pavement rehabilitation activities for these routes."

Here is more from the current six-year highway plan:

PROJECT REVIEW TO LOCATE ALIGNMENT FOR INTERSTATE 69 AROUND HENDERSON FROM E.T. BREATHITT PARKWAY (PENNYRILE PARKWAY) TO OHIO RIVER CROSSING. (I-69 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT). (10CCR) D $1 million, 2012

So - as you've been proven wrong again by folks who live in the state and by folks who actually work for the Transportation Cabinet, yes, Kentucky does care about Interstate 69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on November 24, 2012, 11:40:43 PM
Since you are in New York - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you really have no clue as to where Owensboro is in relation to US 41. It's over 30 miles to the east, and that town is well served by US 231's crossing of the Ohio River - which is a non-freeway, and the parkways that feed into it.

As for Henderson, the US 60 strip is deficient in that it is not free flowing, but it was never designed to be a freeway. A right-in-right-out situation would make the road more efficient and would be cost effective. If this alignment is bypassed, then upgrading it further in-place would not be necessary.

Here is the six-year highway plan that expired FY 2012:

I-69; PERFORM A FINANCIAL PLANNING STUDY FOR NEW I-69 OHIO RIVER CROSSING AT HENDERSON/EVANSVILLE. 2007

And:

"The development of a new river crossing has been recently proposed as part of a federally sponsored environmental study for routing the proposed Interstate 69 corridor across the Ohio River near Henderson. The KYTC will work to initiate a financial plan to outline a strategy of innovative financing for project development that will allow for the ultimate advancement of this proposed corridor. Future I-69 development plans will involve the Pennyrile, Western and Purchase Parkways. To help maintain these critical parkway corridors, the KYTC will continue pavement rehabilitation activities to improve and upgrade pavement conditions on these routes. The Enacted FY 2007-2012 Six-Year Highway Plan contains $17 million for pavement rehabilitation activities for these routes."

Here is more from the current six-year highway plan:

PROJECT REVIEW TO LOCATE ALIGNMENT FOR INTERSTATE 69 AROUND HENDERSON FROM E.T. BREATHITT PARKWAY (PENNYRILE PARKWAY) TO OHIO RIVER CROSSING. (I-69 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT). (10CCR) D $1 million, 2012

So - as you've been proven wrong again by folks who live in the state and by folks who actually work for the Transportation Cabinet, yes, Kentucky does care about Interstate 69.

Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.) Because someone is in a different state, they don't know where Owensboro is? And how does that affect how much KY cares about I-69? Given that Indiana has concrete plans to finish 69, while KY is just getting around to studying the road that will lead to the yet-to-be-determined bridge (and no money for the bridge), that sure sounds like they don't care much to me. Just because you live there doesn't make you right.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on November 25, 2012, 03:11:04 AM

Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.) Because someone is in a different state, they don't know where Owensboro is? And how does that affect how much KY cares about I-69? Given that Indiana has concrete plans to finish 69, while KY is just getting around to studying the road that will lead to the yet-to-be-determined bridge (and no money for the bridge), that sure sounds like they don't care much to me. Just because you live there doesn't make you right.

I have to agree with Steve and the others on Kentucky's seemingly lack of true interest on this highway. For example, it has been over a year since they announced the WK section was now I-69. In that time, they have added a few shields, but not a single BGS, nor a single sign along the I-24 segment, no updated mileage signs and no signage at the exit ramps. In the same time frame, a year ago, I-69 through most of Southern Indiana was still a dirt trail, today it is open.

I am not knocking on KY, but they have had the least to do of any state along the route and appear to be doing next to nothing. There is absolutely no reason at this point, that it should not be completely designated as 69 from the Audubon to the KY/TN state line.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on November 25, 2012, 04:39:15 AM
Yep, there's no reason except FHWA's refusal to accept it into the Interstate system when it has some minor deficiencies that many other Interstates have.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 25, 2012, 08:54:48 AM
A lot of this is word games, but what HB said is really accurate.

Quote
...the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence

So the question is if it is a low priority for the state, do they really care about the I-69 bridge? Is it possible to care without devoting any meaningful resources or pushing the schedule out so far? To keep things in perspective, look how long it took Indiana to connect Evansville (the state's 3rd largest city) to Indianapolis. Until 2005, there was little commitment by Indiana other than the widening of US 41 to I-70 back in the 1970s or 1980s.

Everyone understands that the majority of Kentucky's population is in the eastern part of the state so few question the ordering of priorities. On the other hand, there is a significant bottleneck between Evansville and Henderson that will negatively impact growth in that part of the state. That cannot be ignored - something should be done.

Two questions about the I-69 bridge:
1) Not being an expert in funding mechanisms, I am confused about why they can't sell bonds because this relatively short section will surely be tolled anyway (the bridge and possibly the new Henderson bypass). I think this bridge project is owned by Kentucky with Indiana paying a share, but with tolls, how does that work?
2) Considering financial realities and assuming the current bridges are not near the end of their design life, could they revisit a way to use the existing bridges? I know there are state parks and flood plains to work around so it may not be possible. While any new routing would not be optimal, it would significantly improve the current situation.

Also, generally, how do two states decide who gets which bridge? For example, I know Indiana owns I-265 east side, Sherman Minton (I-64), and SR 237, but because the state line is on the northern bank of the Ohio River when Kentucky became a state, does Kentucky pay more than 50% and do they own more than half the Ohio River bridges? For the current US 41 bridges, they are completely in Kentucky because the course of the river changed over decades. What portion does Indiana have to pay?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 25, 2012, 10:29:21 AM
Ironically enough, in light of recent discussion regarding the location of Owensboro in relation to US 41, the November 25 Henderson Gleaner has an interview with Kevin Sheilley, the outgoing president and CEO of Northwest Kentucky Forward (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/nov/25/looking-into-future/) in which Sheilley raises the possibility that I-69 could be re-routed to Owensboro in order to take advantage of the existing bridge there:

Quote
"I'm very concerned that there could be an I-69 detour" for which Owensboro boosters "could say, 'We've already got a bridge.' (In theory, the state) could extend the improvements already taking place on Western Kentucky Parkway (for I-69) over to the Green River Parkway," then upgrade that north-south route to Owensboro and redesignate it as I-69 — and I-67 — rather than have I-69 follow the Pennyrile to Henderson, where a river crossing remains a costly obstacle.
"I know (Owensboro officials) say that's not their intention," Sheilley said. "But it may be on the minds of other people."

A lot of this is word games, but what HB said is really accurate.

The interview also reinforces mukade's observation, but it additionally lends credence to deanej's position that the Henderson-Evansville bridge project is currently "dead":

Quote
But completing the link by constructing an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville — an undertaking that a few years ago was projected to cost $600 million to $800 million — remains a seemingly insurmountable barrier, even if, as expected, it is operated as a toll bridge.
At the recent annual conference of the Kentucky Association for Economic Development — made up of "a group of people usually informed on stuff going on," according to Sheilley — he was discouraged to find attendees saying they thought the I-69 bridge project "was dead."
"As much as we, this region, has fought for I-69, it's still not on the radar screen" of Kentucky at large, Sheilley said. "It's still not getting the attention it needs to go forward.
"I don't sense any major player in Frankfort advocating on its behalf," he said.
"It's going to take a governor saying, 'It's a priority. We're going to find a way to get this done,' " Sheilley said. "With all respect to Gov. (Steve) Beshear, all the focus has been on Louisville," where two new bridges over the Ohio River are being developed.
"There's not a (state) transportation secretary, a speaker of the (Kentucky) House (of Representatives), a president of the Senate — not someone who has a bully pulpit saying, 'Not tomorrow, not next year — this has got to be at the top of the list,' " Sheilley said of I-69.

I wonder what Tom Tokarski and CARR would think of a Kentucky re-route now that the 67 miles of I-69 in Indiana are open to traffic?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 25, 2012, 11:35:01 AM
I-69 going to Owensboro is not going to work because:
- It would add 50 miles to I-69. For avoiding the hassle of 15-30 minutes in Henderson, you add 45 minutes of time plus more fuel used. No one would take that route. That was the same logic as the US 41/I-70 routing of I-69. The goal is not an Interstate shield for on a route for status - the Interstate shield needs to be on the best route.
- US 231 is not freeway in Indiana and north/east of Owensboro. It is a very good expressway, but there is no way Indiana at least would upgrade that route to freeway.
- This is the least important, but any move like that would once again screw up the exit numbers

So what would it take to create a Henderson bypass while using the existing bridges? That is the only other alternative. Heck, maybe they will have to demolish quite a few businesses - the US 31 projects in Indiana are taking dozens of businesses. Despite the cost, I bet it is a lot cheaper than a new bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on November 25, 2012, 11:37:45 AM
Interesting find, but that is one heck of a zig zag, and as mentioned, at least an additional 70 miles of interstate to route it back to Owensboro. Even if KY tried to push that, there is no way Indiana will go along, considering how close to the river they have it currently.

Who in their right mind, if southbound at 69-64-164, would then travel east to 231, down around Owensboro, follow the Natcher to the WK and back to the WK-Pennyrile? With 164-41-Pennyrile left in it's current state, it would still have to be at least an hour quicker.

I always found it strange how KY did the Pennyrile, leaving a few miles at each end to navigate grade level streets and bottlenecks. It took them approximately 5 years to build 70 miles between Hopkinsville and Henderson, another 40 years to build the additional 6 miles to connect to I-24, and we are still waiting on the 3-5 miles at the northend.

They spent millions to construct 70 miles, and leave the defficient bookends, when 80 miles or less would have done it completely from 164-24.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 25, 2012, 12:38:38 PM
There was always a plan to finish out the southern end of the Pennyrile to I-24, but I honestly don't know why it took them so long to do it. I'm not sure, but the Pennyrile may have been finished before I-24 was built, so there was nothing to tie it into.

There were never any plans to extend the Pennyrile beyond its current northern terminus.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: kharvey10 on November 25, 2012, 03:22:17 PM
Everyone up and down the river might as well hook up to the idea of paying tolls when they do finally get around to building the new bridges.  It's going to be the only way of getting anything done, unless someone has a better idea.  :hmmm:
That was the way the old timers did it for major bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on November 25, 2012, 04:07:09 PM
Since you are in New York - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you really have no clue as to where Owensboro is in relation to US 41. It's over 30 miles to the east, and that town is well served by US 231's crossing of the Ohio River - which is a non-freeway, and the parkways that feed into it.
Looks like I have a better idea of where Owensboro is than you do; I just measured it on Google Maps, and it's only 25 miles.  Compared to Louisville, it's practically on I-69's front door.  I would suspect that traffic moving from there to points west would indeed use US 41, since that route is mostly freeway.

Quote
Here is the six-year highway plan that expired FY 2012:

I-69; PERFORM A FINANCIAL PLANNING STUDY FOR NEW I-69 OHIO RIVER CROSSING AT HENDERSON/EVANSVILLE. 2007

And:

"The development of a new river crossing has been recently proposed as part of a federally sponsored environmental study for routing the proposed Interstate 69 corridor across the Ohio River near Henderson. The KYTC will work to initiate a financial plan to outline a strategy of innovative financing for project development that will allow for the ultimate advancement of this proposed corridor. Future I-69 development plans will involve the Pennyrile, Western and Purchase Parkways. To help maintain these critical parkway corridors, the KYTC will continue pavement rehabilitation activities to improve and upgrade pavement conditions on these routes. The Enacted FY 2007-2012 Six-Year Highway Plan contains $17 million for pavement rehabilitation activities for these routes."

Here is more from the current six-year highway plan:

PROJECT REVIEW TO LOCATE ALIGNMENT FOR INTERSTATE 69 AROUND HENDERSON FROM E.T. BREATHITT PARKWAY (PENNYRILE PARKWAY) TO OHIO RIVER CROSSING. (I-69 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT). (10CCR) D $1 million, 2012

So - as you've been proven wrong again by folks who live in the state and by folks who actually work for the Transportation Cabinet, yes, Kentucky does care about Interstate 69.
I've seen routes much further along the process than that get cancelled.  And unless KY does things a lot faster than NY, given the current planning stage, I'd say that bridge won't be built for another 20-70 years yet.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on November 25, 2012, 05:43:06 PM
Put in a ferry from the end of the US 41 freeway to the end of I-164. Voila, no more intersections.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 25, 2012, 05:50:37 PM
Put in a ferry from the end of the US 41 freeway to the end of I-164. Voila, no more intersections.

Is there a budget to build canals (from I-164 to the Ohio and the Pennyrile Pkwy to the Ohio)?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on November 25, 2012, 05:56:27 PM
There was always a plan to finish out the southern end of the Pennyrile to I-24, but I honestly don't know why it took them so long to do it. I'm not sure, but the Pennyrile may have been finished before I-24 was built, so there was nothing to tie it into.

There were never any plans to extend the Pennyrile beyond its current northern terminus.

Pennyrile Parkway was completed around Hopkinsville in 1968 to US 41A (Exit 7), and extended southward beginning in 2006, and judging from your photos, completed by 2011-2012. Interstate 24 was completed through the county in 1973-1974. There was probably not a need for a southern extension until recently due to US 41A's four-laning in 1957, and I'm still not settled it was needed decades later given that US 41A was fairly free flowing. But US 41A was widened early because Fort Campbell had evolved from a training camp for World War II into a permanent installation.

As for Shelley, special interest groups - which is what Northwest Kentucky Forward is, his comments are for self-interest. His job is on the line if he says otherwise. Of course the governor doesn't place Interstate 69's Ohio River crossing as a "high priority," given that it is a fairly new project and that other highway projects - the Ohio River Bridges Project and the Brent Spence Bridge Project, are of a much higher priority. It's also why there is no more Interstate 66 through southern Kentucky for the foreseeable future, and no talk of a toll road in northern Kentucky or Interstate 74 along the relatively new AA Highway.

With such a high cost - which will surely be over $1 billion by the time construction would actually start, there needs to be more than a commitment from the governor. There needs to be a financial plan which has not been developed. And with a free span just to the west that carries traffic just fine - there is going to be no justification for at least a decade for another span. The only way you are going to see a new bridge developed is if the 1932 northbound span for US 41 is needing replacement. The southbound span was built in 1965 and has quite a few more decades to go.

Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.)

Cry me a river.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 25, 2012, 10:32:40 PM
You should make a bumper sticker:

Henderson Demands to get 69 now
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on November 26, 2012, 04:51:49 PM
All of this because of a two (or however many it is) mile stretch of hotels, gas stations and fast food chains. I'm half surprised that Wal-Mart isn't on that road, it is nearby however.

Reading that article however about the "proposed" I-69 route through Owensboro, there is a mention that just the word "parkway" has negative conotations to it. Apparently, people think that parkways can only be windy roads with tree-line boulevards and whatnot and that putting interstate shields will make things much better in the Owensboro area. Is this really the opinion of most Kentuckians down there or is this just someone "hyping" the need for an interstate? I'm thinking it's the latter, but I just wanted to know.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2012, 05:11:44 PM

...
[/ quote]

Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.)

Cry me a river.
Learn how to quote properly.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on November 26, 2012, 05:24:38 PM
To answer the question about the southern terminus of the Pennyrile Parkway, let's just say I have some inside information.  When the Pennyrile was first constructed in the late 60's, the plan was indeed to eventually extend it south to meet I-24.  The R/W was even purchased for that extension.  However, by the mid 1980's the decision was made not to extend the parkway to I-24 (presumably to save money) and that R/W was sold back to the property owners.

About 12 yrs ago, a new project came along to improve US 41A between the end of the Pennyrile to I-24.  In the course of that project, it was decided to bring back the Pennyrile Extension in order to minimize the improvements needed to US 41A.  The extension was redesigned and the R/W repurchased.  Growth in the south Hopkinsville area forced the realignment of part of the extension compared to its original alignment.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on November 26, 2012, 05:25:48 PM
All of this because of a two (or however many it is) mile stretch of hotels, gas stations and fast food chains. I'm half surprised that Wal-Mart isn't on that road, it is nearby however.

Reading that article however about the "proposed" I-69 route through Owensboro, there is a mention that just the word "parkway" has negative conotations to it. Apparently, people think that parkways can only be windy roads with tree-line boulevards and whatnot and that putting interstate shields will make things much better in the Owensboro area. Is this really the opinion of most Kentuckians down there or is this just someone "hyping" the need for an interstate? I'm thinking it's the latter, but I just wanted to know.

I think it was along the lines of US Rep Hal Rogers who believed that the term "parkway" was a deterrent to economic development. I have a 1999 Herald-Leader article with him quoted as specifically stating that in relation to the then-named Daniel Boone Parkway, which is two-lanes and connects London eastward towards the eastern part of the state. His belief was that by renaming it to Interstate 66 and expanding it to four-lanes, that the parkway designation would no longer be needed.

Jump forward a decade and Interstate 66 is all but dead, sans a half-finished northern bypass of Somerset that is part of the Cumberland Parkway and not Interstate 66. The state has all but dropped interest further eastward because of the very high cost of building a new road between the just-finished four-lane US 119 freeway and the under-construction US 460 freeway that would connect to the Coalfields Expressway in West Virginia which is not being built to interstate standards. That and the Daniel Boone Parkway was renamed after Hal Rogers himself, even though he had nothing to do with the roadway's construction - the Hal Rogers Parkway. How about that!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on November 26, 2012, 06:10:39 PM
Why doesn't Kentucky quit calling these roadways "Parkways", and call them "Freeways" instead?  That might help their marketing issue short of redesignating all of them as interstates.  In most states, the term "Parkway" implies no large trucks.

And I have always wondered why the parallel US routes (US 62, US 41, US 231, etc) were not moved the parkways once the tolls were paid off. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 26, 2012, 06:43:51 PM
However, by the mid 1980's the decision was made not to extend the parkway to I-24 (presumably to save money) and that R/W was sold back to the property owners.

Probably by John Y. Brown., whom I consider to be the second-worst governor in my memory. (Brereton Jones was the worst.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 26, 2012, 06:46:52 PM
Why doesn't Kentucky quit calling these roadways "Parkways", and call them "Freeways" instead?  That might help their marketing issue short of redesignating all of them as interstates.  In most states, the term "Parkway" implies no large trucks.

That decision was made in the early 1960s when the Mountain Parkway became Kentucky's second toll road. The state already had a Kentucky Turnpike; I don't know why they didn't call them "turnpikes" instead of "parkways" and my guess is anyone who would know is long-dead.

There are still a few old-timers around Shepherdsville who refer to I-65 as "The Turnpike."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 26, 2012, 07:05:10 PM
Why doesn't Kentucky quit calling these roadways "Parkways", and call them "Freeways" instead?  That might help their marketing issue short of redesignating all of them as interstates.  In most states, the term "Parkway" implies no large trucks.

And I have always wondered why the parallel US routes (US 62, US 41, US 231, etc) were not moved the parkways once the tolls were paid off. 

Those are good questions, of course.

So as someone from that metro area who is a highway designer, Roadwarrior, how do you see the bridge issue being resolved given financial constraints? Is there any realistic alternative other than the expesive new bridge that may not be built for decades?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on November 26, 2012, 08:27:38 PM
My personal opinion is that in the long run the bridge will need to be built and probably will be built at some point.  From what I have been told, INDOT already has their share of the money for it (held back from Major Moves), although that information is second-hand and could be wrong.  Kentucky is who has the big money issues, and their share would be the majority for this section of roadway and bridge.

Once I-69 connects to Indianapolis from Evansville, or at least gets to Martinsville, and once most or all of the designated Parkways in Kentucky have been upgraded to I-69 and signed in the field, the pressure would start to build to fill in the gap with the new bridge and connecting roadway.  My guestimate is that could take another 10 years or so from now.  Also, by then increased congestion/poorer condition of the exisiting bridges would make a parallel toll bridge more attractive for motorists. 

In other words, until I-69 has enough continuous segments opened on both sides of the bridge, I don't see the need for that bridge to be constructed within the next 10 years.  However, I do hope KYTC is able to protect the corridor for the preferred alternative that was identified in the incomplete EIS.  Because I think at that point, Indiana and Kentucky will get serious about buiding that bridge.   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 26, 2012, 10:53:31 PM
I agree, generally, but I would say once I-69 is through Bloomington and the Pennyrile Pkwy. becomes I-69, that pressure will be on. That could be more like five years. Assuming a minimum lead time of five years to get everything lined up, they had better get going soon, but I am not holding my breath. This may be a longterm Breezewood-like situation.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 27, 2012, 10:43:33 PM
However, I do hope KYTC is able to protect the corridor for the preferred alternative that was identified in the incomplete EIS.  Because I think at that point, Indiana and Kentucky will get serious about buiding that bridge.   

Generally, Kentucky tells people to do what they want with their property and to give no thought to whether or not a road will be built through the area. This is currently an issue -- well, "issue" may be too strong of a word -- as design work gets underway on some improvements to the easternmost mileage of the Mountain Parkway. Some of the properties that would be needed for the project were the sites of homes that were destroyed by the Magoffin County tornado this past spring. Property owners have been asking whether they should build back and are being told to do what they wish without any consideration as to whether or not that property will be needed for the road.

I agree, generally, but I would say once I-69 is through Bloomington and the Pennyrile Pkwy. becomes I-69, that pressure will be on. That could be more like five years. Assuming a minimum lead time of five years to get everything lined up, they had better get going soon, but I am not holding my breath. This may be a longterm Breezewood-like situation.

I hate the term "Breezewood" being used for this situation, or for situations where freeways have no direct connections and you have to use surface roads. Breezewood is a unique anomaly where the permanent setup is you have to use a small portion of a surface route to stay on the expressway. This will be more like it was back in the days when the interstates were being constructed and you had to, for example, exit I-64 eastbound at Frankfort and take US 60 or US 421 to Lexington to rejoin the interstate.

But this won't be the only situation. There will be several instances in Tennessee. South Fulton (not a full freeway interchange at the Purchase Parkway, US 51 and US 45/45E/45W) and the portion south of Dyersburg will be in existence for a long time to come before an Interstate is built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 27, 2012, 10:53:31 PM
I agree, generally, but I would say once I-69 is through Bloomington and the Pennyrile Pkwy. becomes I-69, that pressure will be on. That could be more like five years. Assuming a minimum lead time of five years to get everything lined up, they had better get going soon, but I am not holding my breath. This may be a longterm Breezewood-like situation.

I hate the term "Breezewood" being used for this situation, or for situations where freeways have no direct connections and you have to use surface roads. Breezewood is a unique anomaly where the permanent setup is you have to use a small portion of a surface route to stay on the expressway. This will be more like it was back in the days when the interstates were being constructed and you had to, for example, exit I-64 eastbound at Frankfort and take US 60 or US 421 to Lexington to rejoin the interstate.

But this won't be the only situation. There will be several instances in Tennessee. South Fulton (not a full freeway interchange at the Purchase Parkway, US 51 and US 45/45E/45W) and the portion south of Dyersburg will be in existence for a long time to come before an Interstate is built.

The term Breezewood is well understood, and while this is not identical, the effect is similar.

From a pure I-69 perspective, you are right, but I suspect as many people would use I-69 as an alternative to I-65. I doubt I would ever take I-69 to Memphis, but I likely would use it to go to Nashville or points south.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 27, 2012, 10:59:13 PM
From a pure I-69 perspective, you are right, but I suspect as many people would use I-69 as an alternative to I-65. I doubt I would ever take I-69 to Memphis, but I likely would use it to go to Nashville or points south.

Wouldn't the logical route then be to cross the river on US 231 and take the Natcher Parkway to Bowling Green?

I've decided that if I ever need to go to the Memphis area or points south or west, I'm taking the Kentucky parkways to US 51 to I-155. Bypasses Nashville and the miles and hours of boring rough pavement suckiness that is I-40 west of Music City, plus much less traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 27, 2012, 11:10:27 PM
From a pure I-69 perspective, you are right, but I suspect as many people would use I-69 as an alternative to I-65. I doubt I would ever take I-69 to Memphis, but I likely would use it to go to Nashville or points south.

Wouldn't the logical route then be to cross the river on US 231 and take the Natcher Parkway to Bowling Green?

Realizing that SR 37 is a pain thru Indy, Martinsville, and Bloomington, a good chunk of that needs to be upgraded. Then I would say when Owensboro has a better bypass. It is better than Henderson, but is still a pain going through there.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 27, 2012, 11:39:52 PM
Realizing that SR 37 is a pain thru Indy, Martinsville, and Bloomington, a good chunk of that needs to be upgraded. Then I would say when Owensboro has a better bypass. It is better than Henderson, but is still a pain going through there.

There is currently a project under construction that will bypass that older four-lane stretch of US 60 that took on US 231 when the new bridge was built. It ties in to US 60 about where the 1990s-vintage construction ended, and then will tie into the Wendell Ford Bypass near the KY 54 interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 28, 2012, 03:47:48 AM
Realizing that SR 37 is a pain thru Indy, Martinsville, and Bloomington, a good chunk of that needs to be upgraded. Then I would say when Owensboro has a better bypass. It is better than Henderson, but is still a pain going through there.

There is currently a project under construction that will bypass that older four-lane stretch of US 60 that took on US 231 when the new bridge was built. It ties in to US 60 about where the 1990s-vintage construction ended, and then will tie into the Wendell Ford Bypass near the KY 54 interchange.

And that stretch looks like it will be done by the end of next year, maybe early '14.  (Crosses fingers!)  I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I read somewhere that they want it open between KY 54 and Pleasant Valley/KY 603 before the new Owensboro Health Regional Hospital opens in the summer.  It's located right off the new extension between Pleasant Valley and Daniels Lane.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on December 14, 2012, 02:38:40 PM
This article (http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/55-local-hopkins-top-news/23934-legislators-address-vital-community-projects-at-chamber-breakfast) reports on Kevin McLaren of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet addressing the Kentucky portion of the I-69 project at the Madisonville-Hopkins County Chamber of Commerce 2013 Legislative Priorities breakfast on December 13, in which event literature described the Ohio River bridge as being "key": 

Quote
The Madisonville­Hopkins County Chamber of Commerce, as a member of Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, or C-LINK, a group of 12 chambers of commerce representing communities in 10 Northwest Kentucky counties, encourages our state and federal legislators to continue to pursue completion of Kentucky's portion of Interstate 69. Key to the I-69 project will be the building of a new bridge spanning the Ohio River between Henderson County and Vanderburgh County in Indiana and construction of a 10-mile stretch of connector highway around Henderson between the bridge and the Pennyrile Parkway.

However, Chamber member businesses prioritized eight local projects, and I-69 (including the Ohio River bridge) only ranked as the fourth highest priority.  The twin bridges must be a doing a good job at the present time.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on December 16, 2012, 01:35:58 PM
I agree, generally, but I would say once I-69 is through Bloomington and the Pennyrile Pkwy. becomes I-69, that pressure will be on. That could be more like five years. Assuming a minimum lead time of five years to get everything lined up, they had better get going soon, but I am not holding my breath. This may be a longterm Breezewood-like situation.

I hate the term "Breezewood" being used for this situation, or for situations where freeways have no direct connections and you have to use surface roads. Breezewood is a unique anomaly where the permanent setup is you have to use a small portion of a surface route to stay on the expressway. This will be more like it was back in the days when the interstates were being constructed and you had to, for example, exit I-64 eastbound at Frankfort and take US 60 or US 421 to Lexington to rejoin the interstate.

But this won't be the only situation. There will be several instances in Tennessee. South Fulton (not a full freeway interchange at the Purchase Parkway, US 51 and US 45/45E/45W) and the portion south of Dyersburg will be in existence for a long time to come before an Interstate is built.

The term Breezewood is well understood, and while this is not identical, the effect is similar.

From a pure I-69 perspective, you are right, but I suspect as many people would use I-69 as an alternative to I-65. I doubt I would ever take I-69 to Memphis, but I likely would use it to go to Nashville or points south.

I agree that a large % of people in SW Indiana will reroute to using I-69 to I-164 to US 41 to Pennyrile to I-24 to head to Nashville and points further south (Atlanta, Alabama, vacationing along the FL Gulf Coast) instead of cutting over to I-65, but that's not very much thru traffic being added in the grand scheme of things.  The main driver is going to be either the existing bridges falling apart or population growth in the Evansville metro area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on December 20, 2012, 10:59:49 AM
the November 25 Henderson Gleaner has an interview with Kevin Sheilley, the outgoing president and CEO of Northwest Kentucky Forward (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/nov/25/looking-into-future/):
Quote
"As much as we, this region, has fought for I-69, it's still not on the radar screen" of Kentucky at large, Sheilley said. "It's still not getting the attention it needs to go forward.
"I don't sense any major player in Frankfort advocating on its behalf," he said.
"It's going to take a governor saying, 'It's a priority. We're going to find a way to get this done,' " Sheilley said. "With all respect to Gov. (Steve) Beshear, all the focus has been on Louisville," where two new bridges over the Ohio River are being developed.

In this TV video report (http://tristatehomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=570802), which is primarily about the groundbreaking for the KY 109 interchange upgrade, Gov. Beshear remarks that I-69 is about "jobs, jobs, jobs ... jobs in Kentucky ... jobs in Indiana" and that they will "eventually" have to build the bridges from Indiana to Henderson.  Although he does not tout the Ohio River bridge(s) as a "priority", he at least indicates that the project is on his political "radar screen" in terms of a long-term need.  Of course, he will be able to kick the can down the road to future governors.

The video report also has some footage of the current KY 109 interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 20, 2013, 10:57:55 AM
This article (http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/55-local-hopkins-top-news/23934-legislators-address-vital-community-projects-at-chamber-breakfast) reports on Kevin McLaren of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet addressing the Kentucky portion of the I-69 project at the Madisonville-Hopkins County Chamber of Commerce 2013 Legislative Priorities breakfast on December 13, in which event literature described the Ohio River bridge as being "key": 
Quote
The Madisonville­Hopkins County Chamber of Commerce, as a member of Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, or C-LINK, a group of 12 chambers of commerce representing communities in 10 Northwest Kentucky counties, encourages our state and federal legislators to continue to pursue completion of Kentucky's portion of Interstate 69. Key to the I-69 project will be the building of a new bridge spanning the Ohio River between Henderson County and Vanderburgh County in Indiana and construction of a 10-mile stretch of connector highway around Henderson between the bridge and the Pennyrile Parkway.
However, Chamber member businesses prioritized eight local projects, and I-69 (including the Ohio River bridge) only ranked as the fourth highest priority.  The twin bridges must be a doing a good job at the present time.
I would say once I-69 is through Bloomington and the Pennyrile Pkwy. becomes I-69, that pressure will be on. That could be more like five years. Assuming a minimum lead time of five years to get everything lined up, they had better get going soon

The Henderson-Henderson County Chamber of Commerce has identified its legislative priorities for 2013 (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jan/19/henderson-chamber-sets-2013-priorities/). The number one federal initiative is to encourage various federal entities to designate Interstate 69 as a Project of National and Regional Significance and to accelerate funding for a new Interstate 69 Ohio River bridge:

Quote
The chamber strongly encourages Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration to designate Interstate 69 as a Project of National and Regional Significance and to accelerate funding for a new Interstate 69 Ohio River bridge. The chamber further supports the efforts of CLINK and Hoosier Voices for I-69 in advocating for the advancement of the studies necessary to obtain federal and state funding to swiftly construct this vital new bridge.
The chamber will continue to work diligently with C-LINK, Hoosier Voices, the Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana and state governmental agencies to encourage the utilization of alternative funding mechanisms such as tolling or to expedite this essential construction project.

In the short term, obtaining the designation as a Project of National and Regional Significance, if done quickly, could provide access to part of a $500 million pot of money authorized by MAP-21 in FY2013 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm) that could be applied to initial engineering studies, etc.:

Quote
Projects of National and Regional Significance [1120]
MAP-21 authorizes $500 million from the General Fund (subject to appropriation) in FY 2013 only, to fund critical high-cost surface transportation capital projects that will accomplish national goals, such as generating national/regional economic benefits and improving safety, and that are difficult to complete with existing Federal, State, local, and private funds. States, tribes, transit agencies, and multi-State or multi-jurisdictional groups of these entities are eligible to apply for competitive grant funding.

However, I get the sense that Kentucky and Indiana have yet to put together an organized "multi-State" effort regarding the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 15, 2013, 11:54:47 AM
David Dixon, editor of the Henderson Gleaner, (http://www.courierpress.com/staff/david-dixon/) seconds the call for creating the bi-state authority in this editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/30/another-vote-for-action-on-bridge/)
Quote
We're not talking about moving dirt or even making drawings, but creating the bi-state commission that needs to be set up before anything else can happen. Let's get it done .... Competing for attention with a big town like Cincinnati and Kentucky's Golden Triangle will be tough.

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/14/30pt-hed1-10-hed1-10-inches-p/) reports that the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce has hired the former president and CEO of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, Christy Gillenwater, to be its president and CEO.  Although the article does not discuss a bi-state commission, Gillenwater is presented as having survived the Bloomington I-69 wars and that she is making the I-69 Ohio River bridge a priority:

Quote
Pushing for construction of an Interstate 69 bridge can unite business interests on both sides of the Ohio River, the new president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana said Thursday.
“Yes, we’re Hoosiers, and we’re Wildcats, (but) these bridges connect us,” Christy Gillenwater, who took the helm of the Evansville chamber in December, declared at a Henderson Chamber of Commerce breakfast ....
Securing necessary funding from Kentucky and Indiana — even with the likelihood that tolls would be collected on the bridge — is proving a challenge, particularly with Kentucky already working with Indiana to construct two new interstate bridges across the Ohio River at Louisville and while Northern Kentucky is lobbying for a new I-75 bridge to Cincinnati.
But Gillenwater noted that groups on both sides of the river — Hoosier Voices for I-69 and the Chamber Leadership Initiative of Northwest Kentucky (C-LINK) — continue to jointly advocate for the bridge here.
“We need to come to your aid and partner with you and move forward collectively,” she said.
Gillenwater isn’t new to facing obstacles to I-69. Before coming to Evansville, she had been president and CEO since 2005 of the Greater Bloomington (Ind.) Chamber of Commerce. There was organized opposition to construction of the interstate there for reasons ranging from environmental issues to concerns that an interstate would harm Bloomington’s small-town atmosphere ....

It will be interesting to see if she tries to encourage the creation of a bi-state commission.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on February 15, 2013, 12:09:02 PM
It'll take a lot of earmarked federal money at this point to get it off the backburner.

Governor Pence has said his 3 highway construction priorities for the next four years (http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=135&ArticleID=68521) are I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis, US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend, and the Louisville bridges project.  It does seem like Indiana is going to put a good portion of their budget surplus back into transportation funding but local communities want a lot of that money for maintenance/repair/upgrading of local roads.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 25, 2013, 02:23:20 PM
"The total cost of the bridge and 13-mile section near Henderson is estimated at $1 billion
According to article in today's Evansville Courier Press, the cost estimate for the bridge plus the new roadway to tie into the Pennyrile Parkway has risen to $1.4 billion:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/12/lobbyists-to-be-hired-for-i-69-bridge/
Surprisingly, this March 6, 2012 article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/06/i-69-improvements-begin-on-western-ky-parkway/) provides a cost estimate for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge and the new roadway to connect to the Pennyrile that is significantly less than the above two estimates:
Quote
The most challenging link for I-69 in western Kentucky will be constructing a new bridge across the Ohio River east of Henderson and constructing new roadway to connect the bridge with the Pennyrile south of town. The project has been projected to cost $600 million to $800 million, a funding challenge that Kentucky and Indiana officials haven't resolved.
I suppose it is possible that the $600 million to $800 million estimate is for the bridge alone, although the wording in the article seems to indicate otherwise.
Does anyone know if KYTC has started the Project Review for the alignment around Henderson? - edit - I recently received an email reply to this question from KYTC (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg187836#msg187836):
Quote
... The project you referenced in your question is in the early stages of planning.  The Recommended Highway Plan has money set aside for its construction in 2019.  This is a target construction date and at this time we are uncertain as to if that date is realistic or not.

This article (http://wkyufm.org/post/bill-would-allow-public-private-partnerships-big-construction-projects-kentucky) reports that a bill has been filed that would allow KYTC to explore having public-private partnerships use tolls as a funding component for projects over $500 million:

Quote
State Rep. Sannie Overly has filed a bill that will allow the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to explore public-private partnerships to help construction projects with big price tags .... "This bill is not designed for any one particular project, it is really nothing more than an additional tool in the toolbox of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet," she said.
In public-private partnerships, companies contribute to the construction costs in exchange for access to revenue sources, such as tolls. Under Overly's bill, the public-private option would be available only to so-called mega-projects, which is any project which costs more than $500 million.

The projected cost for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge is greater than $500 million.



This Op-Ed Commentary (http://www.kentucky.com/2013/02/25/2530830/i-69-in-western-kentucky-will.html) is signed by nine Kentucky state senators and 21 Kentucky state representatives from western Kentucky.  In the Op-Ed, they appear to argue that the rest of the state should allow tolls to be used as part of the financing system for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, which also appears to be a plea to enact the above-referenced bill regarding public-private partnerships:

Quote
As legislators who have been involved in the I-69 corridor project for a number of years, we were very disappointed to read the article diminishing the importance of Interstate 69 in Kentucky .... The reporters fail to note, however, that completion of the new I-69 bridge between Henderson and Evansville will, in fact, help the current system, too.
There are now two bridges at that location, one carrying northbound and one carrying southbound traffic. The first was built in 1932 and the second in 1966. The bridges are gridlocked at rush hours, operating at the lowest level of efficiency.
The anticipated increase in traffic flow along the upgraded I-69 corridor will dramatically alleviate the pressure on the current system. This isn't a frivolous choice, but one that is necessary to keep the Kentucky economy moving forward.

The reporters' intent was to take a critical view of infrastructure building, but they merely highlighted a much bigger concern that many of us have about our road infrastructure. The reason that funding for the I-69 bridge project has not been identified is that Kentucky and Indiana have been working through a backlog of necessary projects.
The federal gas tax has not changed since 1993 and has 35 percent less purchasing power today. With the costs to build far outpacing the revenues raised, it is no wonder that projects always take several years to build and that states must be creative in finding funding for their projects.
The citizens of Western Kentucky stepped up to build the former parkway system with tolls, allowing federal and state gas taxes to be used on roads elsewhere in the state. It is time the rest of the state recognized the needs of Western Kentucky as well.

Maybe a public-private partnership will be put in place in time for dirt to be turned on the Henderson approach in 2019.

As an aside, didn't they mean to write "increase" instead of "alleviate" in regard to pressure on the current system?  :hmm:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 28, 2013, 10:18:14 PM
David Dixon, editor of the Henderson Gleaner, (http://www.courierpress.com/staff/david-dixon/) seconds the call for creating the bi-state authority in this editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/30/another-vote-for-action-on-bridge/)
Quote
We're not talking about moving dirt or even making drawings, but creating the bi-state commission that needs to be set up before anything else can happen. Let's get it done
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/14/30pt-hed1-10-hed1-10-inches-p/) reports that the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce has hired the former president and CEO of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, Christy Gillenwater, to be its president and CEO.  Although the article does not discuss a bi-state commission, Gillenwater is presented as having survived the Bloomington I-69 wars and that she is making the I-69 Ohio River bridge a priority

When making the above post, I had overlooked a February 7 Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana Op-Ed (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/07/2013-legislative-priorities/) in which creation of a Bi-State Authority is the Chamber's top public policy initiative for 2013:

Quote
As our top public policy priority, The Chamber supports Hoosier Voices for I-69 and C-LINK in encouraging the formation of a Bi-State Authority that would advance the studies necessary to gain federal funding to construct a new I-69 bridge connecting Evansville to Henderson, Ky.

At least it seems like Gillenwater and the Chamber are doing the preliminary groundwork to figure out how to finance the project.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 24, 2013, 10:34:11 AM
A Henderson Gleaner editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/mar/24/coal-baron-with-mines-here-a-top-bluegrass-poll/) looks to the Louisville Ohio River bridges project to formulate a guesstimate of what the tolls might be on the I-69 Ohio River bridge:

Quote
We’re no closer to knowing when or if Kentucky will be able to undertake the estimated $1.4 billion construction of an Interstate 69 bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville.
That’s largely because the state is already engaged in the $2.6-billion project to build two new Ohio River interstate bridges at Louisville (while the pressure continues for a new I-75 bridge between northern Kentucky and Cincinnati).
But the Louisville project might shed light on how much vehicles would have to pay in tolls to help pay for a new bridge here.
A consultant for the Louisville bridges last week said tolls there would likely be $1 for a car or light truck with a “frequent user” transponder; $2 for other two-axle vehicles; $5 for medium-sized trucks; and $10 for heavy trucks.

Those assumed rates were presented to the Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority, which will be selling toll revenue bonds to help finance the new bridge in downtown Louisville for northbound I-65 traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 27, 2013, 01:20:19 PM
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke wants leaders in both Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky to repeatedly stress the importance of the I-69 Ohio River Bridge (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/may/10/evansville-mayor-wants-to-see-more-cooperation/) to their respective congressional delegations in order to eventually get federal money/assistance to make the bridge a reality:
Quote
New Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke .... concerning the challenges of securing funds for an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River from Evansville to Henderson, Winnecke said, "each community needs to be lobbying our respective congressional delegations to make sure this is a priority for both Henderson and Evansville."

In this TV video report (http://www.14news.com/story/21801509/mayor-winnecke-delivers-his-second-state-of-the-city-address), Mayor Winnecke continues to stress the importance of the I-69 Ohio River bridge:

Quote
" I-69 is more than just a route between Evansville and Indianapolis. It's really a route to the south, too. So until a bridge over the Ohio River designated for Interstate 69 is built, I-69 will be an incomplete project," Mayor Winnecke said. "Mayor Austin and I have committed to each other and to our communities that we will be advocates to renew the discussion on building a new bridge over the Ohio River."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 01, 2013, 08:30:19 AM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/14/30pt-hed1-10-hed1-10-inches-p/) reports that the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce has hired the former president and CEO of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, Christy Gillenwater, to be its president and CEO.  Although the article does not discuss a bi-state commission, Gillenwater is presented as having survived the Bloomington I-69 wars and that she is making the I-69 Ohio River bridge a priority

In a Letter From the Chamber President (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/01/no-headline---ebj_chamberpresletter/), Gillenwater makes some interesting comparisons to other Ohio River crossings:

Quote
Traffic counts on the U.S. 41 bridges are currently third of the 10 bridges crossing the Ohio River connecting Indiana with Kentucky. With the impending completion of I-69 in the two states, daily traffic will undoubtedly increase.
The Southwest Indiana regional business community was recently identified as one of the highest volume urban shipping hubs in the nation, thanks to diversified intermodal transportation links. Yet, the U.S. 41 bridges serve, without redundancy, one corridor. In comparison, the Louisville MSA will soon have four Ohio River bridges; the Owensboro/Paducah MSA is serviced by two bridges; and the Cincinnati MSA has seven Ohio River bridges. The Southwest Indiana/Henderson MSA is the largest MSA in the region with a single highway river crossing.

She also writes about vulnerability to an earthquake and the stress of increased traffic on aging infrastructure:

Quote
... our U.S. 41 bridges do not meet current earthquake standards, and as traffic increases in the coming years, we can only expect that more bottlenecking will occur on the highway. Challenged with at-grade intersections, stoplights, driveways and many traffic intersections, the critical 8-mile segment most certainly creates looming transportation hazards for the region. Although the U.S. 41 bridges are accepted as sturdy and durable today, the infrastructure is quickly aging and will be disproportionately strained by the increased I-69 traffic.

Finally, she intends to cooperate in identifying a funding mechanism for the I-69 Ohio River bridge:

Quote
The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana supports the efforts of Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky (C-LINK) as they encourage the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to act creatively in formulating a plan to fund the completion of a new I-69 bridge. And, as funding becomes increasingly limited at both the state and federal levels, The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana will continue to work closely with Hoosier Voices for I-69 and C-LINK to identify and encourage the use of alternative funding mechanisms, such as tolling and public-private partnerships, to expedite the construction of the much-needed I-69 bridge.

edit


In this Inside Indiana Business interview (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/video.asp?v=2263834511001&tags=03%2D31%2D2013), Gillenwater speaks about how long it takes to put a bridge project together and that "of course, it's Kentucky's bridge".
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 19, 2013, 08:14:08 AM
A Henderson Gleaner editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/mar/24/coal-baron-with-mines-here-a-top-bluegrass-poll/) looks to the Louisville Ohio River bridges project to formulate a guesstimate of what the tolls might be on the I-69 Ohio River bridge:
Quote
the Louisville project might shed light on how much vehicles would have to pay in tolls to help pay for a new bridge here.
A consultant for the Louisville bridges last week said tolls there would likely be $1 for a car or light truck with a “frequent user” transponder; $2 for other two-axle vehicles; $5 for medium-sized trucks; and $10 for heavy trucks.
In this Inside Indiana Business interview (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/video.asp?v=2263834511001&tags=03%2D31%2D2013), Gillenwater speaks about how long it takes to put a bridge project together and that "of course, it's Kentucky's bridge".

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/19/no-headline---interstate_69_update/) reports that Gary Valentine, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s new project manager for Interstate 69, warned the Henderson Chamber of Commerce that tolls would probably be necessary to fund construction of the bridge, and he also used the Louisville example for a possible toll structure:

Quote
The latest cost estimate, which dates from 2008, is $1.4 billion for the Ohio River crossing and its related highway approaches. “Right now, it’s not an affordable project for us.
“To be honest, $1.4 billion is very challenging in these times,” said Valentine, adding that the gas tax doesn’t cover costs like it once did.
Kentucky’s six-year road plan, which guides all state highway construction, provides $1 million to study ways to make the bridge more affordable and Valentine said he thinks costs can be shaved, but a toll might be necessary ....
Valentine gave some ball-park estimates on what kind of toll prices motorists could expect on a new bridge, based on what is being proposed for the new bridges at Louisville. The rates being looked at there are $1 for a frequent user.
“In preliminary studies we defined a frequent user as someone who used the bridge 20 times a month in both directions.” Non-frequent users would pay $2, while the price would be $5 for “box-type trucks and commercial-type trucks” and $10 for tractor-trailer rigs.



Does anyone know if KYTC has started the Project Review for the alignment around Henderson? - edit - I recently received an email reply to this question from KYTC (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg187836#msg187836):
Quote
... The project you referenced in your question is in the early stages of planning.  The Recommended Highway Plan has money set aside for its construction in 2019.  This is a target construction date and at this time we are uncertain as to if that date is realistic or not.

Valentine also spoke about trying to shave costs by shortening the new terrain Henderson approach to the bridge:

Quote
Kentucky’s six-year road plan, which guides all state highway construction, provides $1 million to study ways to make the bridge more affordable and Valentine said he thinks costs can be shaved, but a toll might be necessary.
The preferred corridor branches off from the Pennyrile Parkway south of Henderson “what I consider way early,” which will require the construction of about nine miles of new highway at a cost of about $10 million a mile. He said highway officials will look at branching off closer to Henderson.

edit

A more recent version of the above-quoted article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/19/i-69-prospects-look-good-8212-except-for-the/) has Valentine providing more of an explanation of why he would consider altering the route of the Henderson new terrain approach:

Quote
Having two controlled access highways paralleling one another in that stretch doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, he said, so highway officials will be looking at branching off closer to Henderson.
Title: Standalone Traffic and Toll Forecast For I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 26, 2013, 12:28:52 AM
In the recently completed I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf), the Final Findings set forth a standalone traffic and toll analysis for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge (pp. 26-27, 45 of pdf; pp. 21-22, 40 of document):

Quote
... a separate standalone forecast was developed for SIU 4, which includes a bridge across the Ohio River. The standalone forecast is based on the assumption that the remaining segments of I‐69 are open to traffic. The limits of this standalone project include only the new alignment component of SIU 4, which includes 1.4 and 7.8 miles of roadway approach in Indiana and Kentucky, respectively, and the 4‐mile bridge. Although the bridge is entirely within the state of Kentucky, per preliminary discussions between Kentucky and Indiana, Kentucky will assume 2/3 of the bridge cost, and Indiana will assume the remaining 1/3. Based on these discussions, toll revenue was also divided between the states following this methodology.
Below are the major assumptions for the tolled traffic and toll revenue forecasts:
1. Opening year is 2025
2. Assumes all ETC (transponder and video) and all vehicles pay a toll
3. Toll gantries are located approximately every 20 miles
4. Toll rate:
o Analysis assumed a 2011 per mile toll rate of $0.15 per mile for passenger cars, which equates to $0.227 per mile in 2025 dollars (assuming 3 percent annual inflation). The analysis assumed that the toll rate will be consistent along the entire corridor and that trucks with more than two axles will be tolled at the (N‐1) axles × passenger car rate.
o Analysis assumed a bridge toll rate of $2.50 per trip in 2012 dollars
5. Toll rate escalation is 3.0 percent annually
....
a separate analysis was conducted for SIU 4 as a standalone project. Consistent with a similar study conducted in 2008, the scope of the standalone scenario included only the new bridge and approach portion of SIU 4. Therefore, the existing roadway in Indiana that will likely require minimal upgrades was not included in the scope of the standalone scenario. The results of the SIU 4 standalone scenario are presented in Table 16. The results for the SIU 4 corridor scenario are provided in Table 16 for comparative purposes.
As noted in Table 16, the feasibility ratios decrease significantly for Indiana in the standalone scenario relative to the corridor scenario. The primary reason for this reduction is that there is a significant drop in revenues with the removal of the existing segment in Indiana under the standalone scenario and only a minimal cost reduction. As previously stated, the cost to upgrade the existing segment is anticipated to be minimal. The cost reduction occurs due to the exclusion of a toll gantry that is included on the existing section under the corridor scenario.
The Kentucky feasibility ratio remains consistent across the two scenarios although there is a slight increase in the 2012 project cost. The similar ratios occur because the project scope for the Kentucky portion of SIU 4 is essentially the same under both the corridor and standalone scenarios. The slight increase in cost under the standalone scenario occurs because the host system costs, while less overall for the standalone scenario than the corridor scenario, are shared by two rather than seven states.

(http://i.imgur.com/NBDcZUA.jpg)

A Table of a Summary of Sufficiency of Toll Revenues to Fund Life Cycle Costs for the I-69 states that may toll can be found in this post (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9001.msg217848#msg217848).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on May 13, 2013, 08:44:23 AM
I think the Ohio River Bridge needs to be cancelled. People have been driving the US 41 bridge for years. Who cares if it doesn't have wide enough shoulders? If you can't stay in your lane you shouldn't be driving. Eventually when the bridges need redone, you can put them under construction an do what their doing in Louisville. Building brand new bridges would be a waste of money.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: JMoses24 on May 13, 2013, 09:06:55 AM
I think the Ohio River Bridge needs to be cancelled. People have been driving the US 41 bridge for years. Who cares if it doesn't have wide enough shoulders? If you can't stay in your lane you shouldn't be driving. Eventually when the bridges need redone, you can put them under construction an do what their doing in Louisville. Building brand new bridges would be a waste of money.

Not trying to be contentious, but... "Who cares"? Really?

Here's the thing... yes, if you can't stay in your lane you shouldn't be driving. But not having wide enough shoulders means safety hazards when there is a breakdown. One only needs to look upriver, at the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati, to see what can happen when there are no shoulders and a breakdown occurs:

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20120103/NEWS/301030161/Brent-Spence-bridge-victim-alive-when-he-hit-water?odyssey=mod%7Cmostview
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 13, 2013, 02:27:16 PM
I think the Ohio River Bridge needs to be cancelled. People have been driving the US 41 bridge for years. Who cares if it doesn't have wide enough shoulders? If you can't stay in your lane you shouldn't be driving. Eventually when the bridges need redone, you can put them under construction an do what their doing in Louisville. Building brand new bridges would be a waste of money.

Not if is an Interstate-grade bridge that would increase capacity and is part of a national, if not international corridor...which the existing US 41 bridge most certainly ISN'T.

I guess you would have urged the people in the Tampa Bay area to simply rebuild the old Sunshine Skyway bridge the same way after it was hit and collapsed??
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on May 13, 2013, 03:34:41 PM
A new bridge is badly needed as US-41 backs up now and with more I-69 traffic it will really back up.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on May 14, 2013, 08:02:05 AM
Kentucky already said it was not affordable. It is last on their priorities. They are actualy considering making a small bypas around Henderson and using the US 41 bridges. KY simply doesn't have the 2 billion dollars to build it and they have have greater priorities then building a bridge that already exists on US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on May 28, 2013, 07:23:17 PM
Congressmen: I-69 bridge will require 'creative' funding (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/may/28/no-headline---i-69/)

Quote
EVANSVILLE — Leaders from both Indiana and Kentucky say they’ll have to get creative to find money for the planned I-69 bridge that would link the two states.

A group of elected officials and I-69 proponents met Tuesday at the Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana for an initial talk about how to come up with the estimated $1.2 billion the bridge will require.

I-69 is open in segments, with others yet to be built. In the big picture, the interstate is envisioned as one that would run across the United States from Canada to Mexico. The planned I-69 bridge under discussion Tuesday would span the Ohio River between Evansville and Henderson, Ky.

U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Republican who represents Kentucky’s First Congressional District, said funding is tight at all levels of government, from local to state and federal.

“We recognize that there is simply not enough money there to meet all our infrastructure needs, so we are exploring other options,” Whitfield said.

U.S. Rep. Larry Bucshon, a Republican who represents Indiana’s Eighth Congressional District, agreed.

“We all know that government dollars are tight,” Bucshon said.

One possible idea, Bucshon said, is a public/private partnership that would involve private investors putting up some of the money for the project. Making the bridge a toll bridge is another possibility, Bucshon said.

Bucshon characterized Tuesday’s meeting as “a preliminary discussion” only, and neither he nor Whitfield could say how much of the total cost might come from private funding.

Whitfield also noted that, while Indiana’s state laws allow public/private partnerships for such projects, Kentucky’s currently do not.

Others involved in the meeting included Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke, Henderson Mayor Steve Austin and numerous others.

Winnecke said the I-69 bridge is essential if the highway is to fulfill its economic development potential for this region.

“Without it, Evansville simply becomes a cul-de-sac for southbound traffic,” Winnecke said.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on May 29, 2013, 05:50:40 PM
Quote
“Without it, Evansville simply becomes a cul-de-sac for southbound traffic,” Winnecke said.

 :clap:
Great line from Evansville's mayor.

If they can get some creative funding going and start this project, pressure will build on Tennessee's pols to get their portion moving, to finish the road from Indy to Memphis.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 09, 2013, 10:58:37 PM
David Dixon, editor of the Henderson Gleaner, (http://www.courierpress.com/staff/david-dixon/) seconds the call for creating the bi-state authority in this editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/30/another-vote-for-action-on-bridge/). He also injects a sense of urgency to do so because of perceived competition for funding with the replacement for the Brent Spence bridge in the Cincinnati area:
Quote
We're not talking about moving dirt or even making drawings, but creating the bi-state commission that needs to be set up before anything else can happen. Let's get it done .... There's another reason to act now.
With plans for two new bridges in the Louisville area moving forward, it looks like the next emphasis by the powers that be will be on either our bridge or one replacing the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Northern Kentucky with Cincinnati.

Competing for attention with a big town like Cincinnati and Kentucky's Golden Triangle will be tough. Working in our favor is what seems to be a realization down here that in this day and age it's not going to happen without putting tolls on the bridge ....

Dixon continues his call for a sense of urgency in a June 9 editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jun/09/just-wonderingprotests-bridgesand-a-special/):

Quote
When, if ever, will we see some kind of real action, even preliminary, on getting a new Interstate 69 bridge built between Henderson and Evansville?
A big powwow was held in Evansville last month with politicians and business leaders from both states in attendance. One characterized the meeting as “a preliminary discussion.” Seems like we’ve had quite a few of those already.
The federal government’s not going to build a bridge by itself. State money is just as tight. Public/private partnerships that have raised funds for highway projects in Indiana are not allowed by current Kentucky law.
The idea of putting tolls on a new bridge was brought up as a possibility at the recent meeting. Tolls are more than a possibility. They’re a necessity.
The planning should commence with building a toll bridge as a given.
We paid tolls on Kentucky parkways for years and everybody got around OK. I never knew of anybody skipping their Destin vacation because they had to pony up at the toll booth on the Pennyrile. Or missing a meal at the Moonlight in Owensboro because of tolls on the Audubon.
It’s going to take some kind of combination of tolls, federal, state and maybe private money to get a bridge built and open up northwest Kentucky (and southwest Indiana) to the economic growth that an interstate highway would bring ....
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke had a good line at the May meeting, saying that without a bridge Interstate 69 becomes “a cul-de-sac” in our area.
A cul-de-sac can be a nice place to have your house, quieter, less traffic. It’s not so good a place to put your business.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on June 11, 2013, 11:56:54 AM
I think the Ohio River Bridge needs to be cancelled. People have been driving the US 41 bridge for years. Who cares if it doesn't have wide enough shoulders? If you can't stay in your lane you shouldn't be driving. Eventually when the bridges need redone, you can put them under construction an do what their doing in Louisville. Building brand new bridges would be a waste of money.

Are you aware that the Evansville-Henderson metro is the largest metro by far on the Ohio and even Mississippi River with a single highway crossing?

It may seem adequate to the casual traveler from Terre Haute passing through on the weekend, but there can be serious backups during the week. This is problematic for the thousands of people who must cross it daily for work and school requirements, not to mention medical issues.

I have never heard your claim that a short bypass and utilizing the current bridges is being considered. I do think a fairly quick and adequate temporary solution would be to build a couple of overpasses along the Henderson strip and create an urban freeway through there. Similar to what was done with US 231 in Huntsville for example. Fixing the strip and closing the grade crossings at Wolf Hills on the KY side and Waterworks Road on the Indiana side would eliminate most of the accidents which now back up the traffic and would provide a limited access route for 69 while the new bridge is being worked out.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on June 11, 2013, 12:08:22 PM
I have never heard your claim that a short bypass and utilizing the current bridges is being considered. I do think a fairly quick and adequate temporary solution would be to build a couple of overpasses along the Henderson strip and create an urban freeway through there. Similar to what was done with US 231 in Huntsville for example. Fixing the strip and closing the grade crossings at Wolf Hills on the KY side and Waterworks Road on the Indiana side would eliminate most of the accidents which now back up the traffic and would provide a limited access route for 69 while the new bridge is being worked out.

There would barely be enough room to do even what is done with US 231 in Huntsville, which is not constructed to interstate standards. A lot of businesses would either have to be relocated or bulldozed in order to make room for something that is adequate for through I-69 traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on June 11, 2013, 12:21:53 PM
Yes, there is barely enough room, but you could get 4 lanes up in the air with a couple of one way frontage lanes. I agree, it wouldn't be interstate standards, but would serve as an adequate temporary fix until the can get the funding for the new bridges. Just sign it US 41/Temp. 69
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on June 11, 2013, 06:37:39 PM
Yes, there is barely enough room, but you could get 4 lanes up in the air with a couple of one way frontage lanes. I agree, it wouldn't be interstate standards, but would serve as an adequate temporary fix until the can get the funding for the new bridges. Just sign it US 41/Temp. 69

The temporary fix would likely cost more than the permanent facility; bridges are not cheap, and there are still likely to be some ROW and easements required.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 11, 2013, 11:00:00 PM
http://www.in.gov/ifa/files/RFQ__for__I-69_Section_5.pdf
The Indiana Finance Authority has released the RFQ for Section 5
Final ROD from FHWA is expected in July 2013.  INDOT's going to start buying the needed ROW once that completes.
One of the project goals is "Achieve substantial completion for the Project by Fall 2016", which is a pretty aggressive time frame.  I would assume that would mean all the new overpasses/interchanges are open to traffic, stoplights removed, new lanes open etc, but there might still be some cleanup work to do in 2017 before they could sign the whole thing as I-69 to Martinsville.
(above quote from Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4855.msg223436#msg223436) thread)
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/19/no-headline---interstate_69_update/) reports that Gary Valentine, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s new project manager for Interstate 69, told the Henderson Chamber of Commerce that several projects over the next two to three years on both the Pennyrile and Purchase Parkways will allow I-69 shields to be installed from Mayfield to Henderson
(above quote from I-69 in KY  (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg216590#msg216590) thread)
from the current six-year highway plan:
PROJECT REVIEW TO LOCATE ALIGNMENT FOR INTERSTATE 69 AROUND HENDERSON FROM E.T. BREATHITT PARKWAY (PENNYRILE PARKWAY) TO OHIO RIVER CROSSING. (I-69 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT). (10CCR) D $1 million, 2012
(above quote from I-69 Ohio River Bridge (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg186475#msg186475) thread)
... I emailed ... KYTC ... about the extent of progress on the above project [and their reply]:
Quote
The project you referenced in your question is in the early stages of planning.  The Recommended Highway Plan has money set aside for its construction in 2019.  This is a target construction date and at this time we are uncertain as to if that date is realistic or not.
(above quote from I-69 in KY  (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg187836#msg187836) thread)
In the recently completed I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf), the Final Findings set forth a standalone traffic and toll analysis for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge (pp. 26-27, 45 of pdf; pp. 21-22, 40 of document)
(http://i.imgur.com/NBDcZUA.jpg)

Reading the above tea leaves in this thread, and the Indiana and Kentucky threads, I think the current thinking may be to have significant progress on the I-69 Ohio River Bridge in the 2018-2020 time frame. In the meantime, I think the message will continue to be hammered home that tolls are an essential part of the bridge project. A 2018-2020 target could be pushed back by Indiana Gov. Pence's stated commitment in this May 23 article (http://www.indystar.com/article/20130522/NEWS05/305220056/Indiana-Gov-Mike-Pence-says-he-committed-finishing-69-into-Indianapolis-toll-free) to finish I-69 to Indianapolis without tolls:

Quote
“I want to be clear ­today. I am firmly committed to completing I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis,” Pence said to applause from a couple of hundred contractors, designers and financial firms at an Indiana Government Center South ­forum on how to take part in construction of the next section of I-69 to be built.
That’s a 21-mile section from Bloomington to Martinsville.
But Pence said the job won’t be done until the ­interstate links to I-465 in Marion County, allowing I-69 to fi­nally stretch from Evansville in the south to the Michigan border north of Fort Wayne. While I-69 has long connected Indianapolis to northeastern Indiana, the southern leg remained just a dream ­until Gov. Mitch Daniels launched it during his ­administration.
“The message here ­today is we’re going to finish what we started,” Pence told reporters. “And we’re going to use all the resources that we have at our disposal to do that in a way that serves the interests of taxpayers and is efficient and effective and under budget.”
Pence said there are no plans for tolls on the highway. “It’s certainly not in our proposal or our thinking at this time . . . and we’re not advocating for that.”
He said completing I-69 is a higher priority for him than other transportation projects, including widening I-70 and building the so-called Commerce Connector south and east of Marion County.

With Indiana's share of the bridge project in the neighborhood of $305 million, and Pence's current commitment to build the I-69 Martinsville to Indianapolis segment without tolls, tolls would have to finance a significant percentage of Indiana's share in order to meet a 2018-2020 time frame. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 12, 2013, 10:03:55 AM
In the recently completed I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf), the Final Findings set forth a standalone traffic and toll analysis for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge .... With Indiana's share of the bridge project in the neighborhood of $305 million, and Pence's current commitment to build the I-69 Martinsville to Indianapolis segment without tolls, tolls would have to finance a significant percentage of Indiana's share in order to meet a 2018-2020 time frame.

On pages 47-49/122 of the Final Findings (pages 42-44 of the document), an analysis is performed under three scenarios to determine what percentage of the bridge's project cost could be covered by innovative financing.  The three scenarios and the percentage covered by innovative financing:

1. Base Case: This case assumes the SIU’s financing is solely supported by toll revenues. 71%.

2. Case 1: Under this case, the security for the bonds and the TIFIA loan are enhanced by a contractual obligation of the State DOT to pay operations, maintenance and rehabilitation, and replacement expenses to the extent toll revenues are not sufficient. This back‐up obligation or “credit enhancement” allows the bonds and TIFIA loan to be secured by a pledge of gross toll revenues. 90%.

3. Case 2: This case improves on Case 1 by adding a full secondary lien security or legal pledge to the debt from a high credit worthy nontoll revenue source(s) such as a state transportation trust fund or a state’s full faith and credit. This significantly improves the SIU’s credit rating to an assumed ‘AA‐’ that results in additional project debt proceeds. 100%.

From having to come up with approximately $85 million in a toll-only base case scenario to having the project financed entirely through alternative innovative financing in the Case 2 scenario, it seems like Indiana could definitely meet the 2018-2020 time frame independently of whatever progress may or may not be occurring on the Martinsville to Indianapolis section of I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on June 12, 2013, 10:14:50 AM
Here's what I think has to happen to get this done:
- Kentucky passes a law allowing a P3 for the I-69 bridge project
- Indiana, Kentucky and private company jointly enter into a P3 agreement to design, build, finance,  maintain, and collect tolls
- Private company gets X amount up front & during construction in milestone payments from IN & KY and whatever Federal funding can be found.
- IN & KY both pass laws that create a tax district in Evansville/Henderson MSA.  Revenue is collected via some combination  of taxes/fees.  I'd probably have the majority of the money coming from fees for vehicle registration (more for commerical vehicles, less for normal ones).  All that would go into an investment fund like Indiana is doing with Major Moves 2020, ran by the Indiana Finance Authority & whatever the KY equivalent is.  I'd also consider a smaller fee spread out throughout SW IN/NW KY to add to that (much like how Marion County, IN has a higher amusement tax to pay for Lucas Oil Stadium and the suburb counties also got a smaller tax increase).
- Tolls would be collected on the bridge via electronic tolling.  Everyone in the Evansville/Henderson MSA would be credited per vehicle for the fee they had already paid (i.e., if fee was $100 per vehicle, they'd get $100 in their account each year).  After that gets depleted you'd get charged for tolls on the bridge.  You could also go with reduced tolls for people in the MSA, but I think this would be a fairer way to do it and also would encourage people to use the new road instead of the existing bridge crossing.

The private company gets paid off over the duration of the contract by a combination of:
- The state funding from IN & KY up front and whatever Federal money can also be used (probably should be around 1/3rd of the cost)
- Tolls on the bridge
- Tax revenue from the new Evansville/Henderson MSA tax district and investment money
- Various other state/federal funding if tolls + tax revenue district combined weren't enough to cover the payment to the private company

I would also make sure there is an option to buy the private company out and remove the tolls if Federal funding could be found to pay off the rest of the bridge, or if there was enough revenue from the tax district to pay off the bridge.

Basically this way you can split the cost so that Evansville itself picks up more of the tab.  They're the ones who will benefit economically from the bridge but they're probably not driving to Henderson *that* much to cover the cost with tolls.  The State of Indiana doesn't have to pay more than its fair share (for a bridge that people from Indiana probably won't use that much).  Kentucky gets some help so they don't have to pay for 2/3rds of the bridge alone, and hopefully the people in Henderson don't get completely hammered on tolls.  This setup should avoid some of the issues that probably will arise with the tolls on the Ohio River Bridges project in Louisville (i.e. people from S. Indiana paying most of the tolls when they commute to work & back, Louisville residents discouraged from traveling into Indiana).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 16, 2013, 08:53:10 PM
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke wants leaders in both Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky to repeatedly stress the importance of the I-69 Ohio River Bridge (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/may/10/evansville-mayor-wants-to-see-more-cooperation/) to their respective congressional delegations in order to eventually get federal money/assistance to make the bridge a reality:
Quote
concerning the challenges of securing funds for an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River from Evansville to Henderson, Winnecke said, "each community needs to be lobbying our respective congressional delegations to make sure this is a priority for both Henderson and Evansville." ....
this editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/30/another-vote-for-action-on-bridge/) ... perceived competition for funding with the replacement for the Brent Spence bridge in the Cincinnati area:
Quote
There's another reason to act now. With plans for two new bridges in the Louisville area moving forward, it looks like the next emphasis by the powers that be will be on either our bridge or one replacing the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Northern Kentucky with Cincinnati.
Competing for attention with a big town like Cincinnati and Kentucky's Golden Triangle will be tough.

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's office has issued a June 12 press release (http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=ff0b62f1-5762-451b-a994-5a2529858bce&ContentType_id=c19bc7a5-2bb9-4a73-b2ab-3c1b5191a72b&Group_id=0fd6ddca-6a05-4b26-8710-a0b7b59a8f1f) about his recent meeting with Secretary of Transportation Nominee Anthony Foxx about "Kentucky priorities", and both the Brent Spence Bridge and the I-69 Ohio River Bridge were mentioned as priorities:

Quote
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell welcomed Secretary of Transportation Nominee Anthony Foxx to his office in the U.S. Capitol.
The meeting provided Senator McConnell the opportunity to highlight the importance of several Kentucky transportation projects, including the Brent Spence Bridge in Northern Kentucky, Ohio River Bridges in Louisville and the I-69 Bridge in Henderson.
“As Republican Leader, I am able to meet face to face with Administration officials to ensure that Kentucky priorities are brought to their attention,” Senator McConnell said. “I appreciate Mayor Foxx taking the time to discuss with me the importance of several Kentucky transportation projects and the challenges to building them during these tough economic times.”

At least Senator McConnell has been successfully lobbied to include the I-69 Ohio River Bridge in the conversation as a "Kentucky priority".
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 22, 2013, 11:41:52 AM
I didn't see this asked before, so forgive me if it has been, but is there even a map of the proposed routing?  All I've heard is that it will be 3 miles east of US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 22, 2013, 11:55:50 AM
is there even a map of the proposed routing?

The project currently has neither a Final Environmental Impact Statement nor a Record of Decision. However, a 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement includes a map which is part of this post:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg186092#msg186092

Kentucky is currently studying possible changes to the corridor in its approach to the bridge:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg216589#msg216589

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/19/no-headline---interstate_69_update/) reports that Gary Valentine, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s new project manager for Interstate 69 .... also spoke about trying to shave costs by shortening the new terrain Henderson approach to the bridge:
Quote
The preferred corridor branches off from the Pennyrile Parkway south of Henderson “what I consider way early,” which will require the construction of about nine miles of new highway at a cost of about $10 million a mile. He said highway officials will look at branching off closer to Henderson.
....
A more recent version of the above-quoted article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/19/i-69-prospects-look-good-8212-except-for-the/) has Valentine providing more of an explanation of why he would consider altering the route of the Henderson new terrain approach:
Quote
Having two controlled access highways paralleling one another in that stretch doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, he said, so highway officials will be looking at branching off closer to Henderson.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 27, 2013, 06:08:05 PM
Quote
“Without it, Evansville simply becomes a cul-de-sac for southbound traffic,” Winnecke said.
:clap:
Great line from Evansville's mayor.

Mayor Winnecke's counterpart across the river has also recently spoken about the bridge. On July 25, Henderson Mayor Steve Austin gave his "State of the City" address.  In this article (http://surfky.com/index.php/news/local/henderson/35153-henderson-mayor-reports-city-is-in-sound-financial-shape-at-state-of-the-city-address), he describes the bridge as "the top priority for the city of Henderson":

Quote
Getting a $1.4 billion bridge that will connect I-69 between Kentucky and Indiana is the top priority for the city of Henderson, Mayor Steve Austin told a crowd gathered at the Henderson Fine Arts Center on Thursday.

In another article about Mayor Austin's address (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jul/25/sidewalk-dining-proposed-for-downtown-area/), he claims that, "We’re going to get this done one way or another":

Quote
Austin wound up his speech by talking about the proposed bridge for Interstate 69, which is estimated to cost $1.4 billion, but will link major highway improvements on both sides of the river that are already well under way.
“The bridge is a tremendous opportunity but it’s also very difficult,” he said. “It’s very expensive to build. We’ve got to find that money. We’re going to get this done one way or another. We’re going to look at everything.”
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 27, 2013, 08:36:37 PM
well it's not completely a cul-de-sac, since us41 has its own bridge
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 28, 2013, 02:50:11 AM
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke had a good line at the May meeting, saying that without a bridge Interstate 69 becomes “a cul-de-sac” in our area.
A cul-de-sac can be a nice place to have your house, quieter, less traffic. It’s not so good a place to put your business.

It's good for Evansville and 69 boosters to have Winnecke staying vocal about it.  Evansville is of the size that business boosters have plenty to work with but have to keep working with it all the time.

I'm curious about the anticipated effects on the KY side, with 69 potentially drawing off a lot of the (tax-generating) business traffic from 41.  I don't know the ROWs being considered, but 41 traffic may not alone keep it all open.  Maybe for their sake, this leg of 41 should be Business 69, if they do that anymore.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 28, 2013, 08:43:10 AM
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke had a good line at the May meeting, saying that without a bridge Interstate 69 becomes “a cul-de-sac” in our area.
A cul-de-sac can be a nice place to have your house, quieter, less traffic. It’s not so good a place to put your business.

It's good for Evansville and 69 boosters to have Winnecke staying vocal about it.  Evansville is of the size that business boosters have plenty to work with but have to keep working with it all the time.

I'm curious about the anticipated effects on the KY side, with 69 potentially drawing off a lot of the (tax-generating) business traffic from 41.  I don't know the ROWs being considered, but 41 traffic may not alone keep it all open.  Maybe for their sake, this leg of 41 should be Business 69, if they do that anymore.

Considering it's highly likely that tolls will be part of the funding mechanism for the I-69 bridge, I would guess that there would still be a ton of traffic on US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 28, 2013, 08:35:07 PM
Does anyone know if the proposed bridge will go over the green river also or is the bridge to the I west of the confluence.
The Executive Summary of the 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I-69 between Evansville and Henderson (http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/executive%20summary.pdf) identifies Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative (page 23/23 of pdf; page S-23 of document) and describes Alternative 2's Indiana approach as follows (page 11/23 of pdf):
Quote
Alternative 2 utilizes the existing I-164 alignment from its northern terminus at I-64 in Warrick County, to just east of the Green River Road interchange and west of Angel Mounds State Memorial Site. From that location, the alternative leaves the existing I-164 alignment and heads south to cross the Ohio River immediately west of the mouth of the Green River.
(above quote from I-69 in KY (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg235146#msg235146) thread)
I'm curious about the anticipated effects on the KY side, with 69 potentially drawing off a lot of the (tax-generating) business traffic from 41.

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jul/28/antique-street-lamps-to-sprout-on-second-street/) reports on how the anticipated location of the I-69 Ohio River Bridge ("probably somewhere near the mouth of the Green River"), and the anticipated new terrain approach to the bridge will probably make Second Street (KY 351) (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=2nd+Street,+Henderson,+KY&hl=en&ll=37.835683,-87.57906&spn=0.052535,0.076818&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.163737,9.832764&oq=second+street+henderson+&t=h&hnear=2nd+St,+Henderson,+Kentucky&z=14) "the logical front door when I-69 happens" (essentially replacing the US 41 North strip); as a result, Henderson already has efforts underway to improve the Second Street (KY 351) corridor:

Quote
Antique-style lamp posts will go marching up Second Street later this fiscal year as the city embarks on making it the community’s new front door.
And a proposed revamping of the city zoning ordinance will aid in that effort as city officials hope to encourage new investment and development along the corridor.
The long-term vision, of course, is that at some point the Interstate 69 bridge will become a reality — probably somewhere near the mouth of the Green River. City officials think the new bridge approaches will prevent U.S. 41-North from continuing as the city’s main entrance.
“I think eventually that Second Street will become our new I-69 entrance,” said Mayor Steve Austin.
“If that is the case, then we would like for our entrance to our community to be as attractive as possible.”
“It will be the logical front door when I-69 happens,” said City Manager Russell Sights, noting most visitors’ first look at the community is probably the U.S. 41-North strip — not exactly the city’s most attractive aspect.
“With some proper signage we could encourage (motorists) to use Second Street as the main entrance, which is a five-lane highway direct shot to the downtown,” one of Henderson’s best attributes.
The city has drawn up a $688,000 multi-year plan for improving the corridor. In the current fiscal year 22 lamp posts will be placed between the overpass and Alvasia Street at a cost of $176,000. Another $64,000 will pay for sidewalk, curb and gutter repair and replacement in the same area.
Next fiscal year another 20 lamps will sprout up between Alvasia and Adams streets at a cost of $160,000, while another $64,000 is slated for sidewalk and other concrete repairs there. The final phase, in fiscal year 2015-16, will see the final 20 lamp posts and concrete repairs at the same costs between Adams and Green streets ....
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 30, 2013, 12:34:09 AM
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke had a good line at the May meeting, saying that without a bridge Interstate 69 becomes “a cul-de-sac” in our area.
A cul-de-sac can be a nice place to have your house, quieter, less traffic. It’s not so good a place to put your business.

It's good for Evansville and 69 boosters to have Winnecke staying vocal about it.  Evansville is of the size that business boosters have plenty to work with but have to keep working with it all the time.

I'm curious about the anticipated effects on the KY side, with 69 potentially drawing off a lot of the (tax-generating) business traffic from 41.  I don't know the ROWs being considered, but 41 traffic may not alone keep it all open.  Maybe for their sake, this leg of 41 should be Business 69, if they do that anymore.

Considering the proximity of US 41 to both the central business district of Evansville and Henderson proper, I would imagine US 41 would still be the primary route for local traffic between Henderson and most of Evansville. As others have mentioned, apparently quite a few people still use US 41 through Evansville instead of using I-164.  I can't imagine why, but if that is the case, I would assume that would continue as well for US 41 through traffic.

My guess with these traffic patterns, the US 41 bridges would still have a heavier traffic count than the new I-69 bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on October 08, 2013, 09:13:06 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/14/30pt-hed1-10-hed1-10-inches-p/) reports that the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce has hired the former president and CEO of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, Christy Gillenwater, to be its president and CEO.
In a Letter From the Chamber President (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/01/no-headline---ebj_chamberpresletter/), Gillenwater .... intends to cooperate in identifying a funding mechanism for the I-69 Ohio River bridge
Some Democrats and Republicans appear to be cooperating in an effort to bring home some federal I-69 funding, presumably in the hope that I-69 will have a prominent role in the 2015 national freight plan*:
http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/grow-economy/us-congressman-blake-farenthold-launches-bipartisan-interstate-69-congressional-005905
* with up to 95% federal funding for interstate projects (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/freight.cfm):
Quote
Prioritization of projects to improve freight movement
Authorizes DOT to allow a maximum Federal share of 95% for an Interstate System project (or of 90% for a non-Interstate System project) if the project makes a demonstrable improvement in the efficiency of freight movement and is identified in a State freight plan (as described in section 1118 of MAP-21). [§1116]
MAP-21 national freight plan was discussed at the recent Intermodal Freight Conference in Memphis:
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2013/sep/26/economist-outlines-us-freight-network-at-intermodal-conference/#comments
Quote
an appearance from U.S. Department of Transportation chief economist Jack Wells ... spoke to the group about ... development of a national freight strategic plan by 2015.
“We are going to implement this as a multimodal plan,” Wells said. “MAP-21 defines a national freight network as a highway-only network, but we think it is important to have a multimodal approach to freight planning, whether it is at the state or national level.”.
(bottom quote from Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus Launched (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10534.msg249583#msg249583) thread)

In another Letter from the Chamber President (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/oct/07/ebj_chamberpresletter/), Gillenwater illustrates that she has picked up the "multimodal" message loud and clear by referencing it in regard to the I-69 Ohio River Bridge and the completion of I-69 to Indianapolis:

Quote
Our mission and vision directed us to focus on several strategic goals ... Another key focus will be to improve multimodal regional transportation infrastructure — with the completion of an interstate-grade I-69 bridge and seamless connection between Indianapolis and Evansville via Interstate 69.

Is there a need for another rail crossing in the Evansville-Henderson area that could be incorporated into the I-69 bridge in order to possibly strengthen a bid for some federal "mutimodal" freight funding (if any federal funding will be available at all in 2015)?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on October 09, 2013, 09:10:49 AM
The issue is I don't even see a rail line anywhere close to where the proposed new I-69 bridge is going to go.

The existing CSX line seems to run on the other side of Evansville, on the W side of US 41, then goes under the Lloyd Expressway (SR 62), goes through the industrial district in Evansville, then basically follows the river on the Indiana side all the way down to Henderson and then crosses going east-southeast into downtown Henderson.

So you're either looking at miles of new railroad, some of which would have to run through downtown Evansville, or running I-69 through Evansville to meet up with the railroad track.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on October 09, 2013, 10:16:30 AM
There used to be a railroad car ferry across the river near the US 41 bridge. In its last days it was abandoned by the Illinois Central and leased by an electric interurban.
http://www.hendersonkyhistory.com/Interurban.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=_ufnPiYmy48C&pg=PA124
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge To Be Completed in Eight Years?
Post by: Grzrd on October 14, 2013, 04:44:40 PM
Reading the above tea leaves in this thread, and the Indiana and Kentucky threads, I think the current thinking may be to have significant progress on the I-69 Ohio River Bridge in the 2018-2020 time frame.
Henderson Mayor Steve Austin gave his "State of the City" address .... In another article about Mayor Austin's address (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jul/25/sidewalk-dining-proposed-for-downtown-area/), ...:
Quote
Austin wound up his speech by talking about the proposed bridge for Interstate 69 ...“The bridge is a tremendous opportunity but it’s also very difficult,” he said. “It’s very expensive to build. We’ve got to find that money. We’re going to get this done one way or another. We’re going to look at everything.”
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke had a good line at the May meeting, saying that without a bridge Interstate 69 becomes “a cul-de-sac” in our area.
A cul-de-sac can be a nice place to have your house, quieter, less traffic. It’s not so good a place to put your business.
It's good for Evansville and 69 boosters to have Winnecke staying vocal about it.  Evansville is of the size that business boosters have plenty to work with but have to keep working with it all the time.

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/oct/14/advocates-want-i-69-bridge-built-eight-years/) reports that Winnecke and Brad Schneider, president of the Henderson Chamber of Commerce, have committed to keep working with it by announcing both the creation of BridgeLink, a Henderson-Evansville partnership to campaign for the bridge, and a self-imposed eight-year timeline to complete the I-69 Ohio River bridge project:

Quote
Proponents of building an Interstate 69 bridge across the river between Henderson and Evansville said Monday they want to see the span completed within eight years.
“That’s our objective,” Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke said
at a news conference announcing the creation of BridgeLink, a Henderson-Evansville partnership to campaign for the bridge.
“It’s an aggressive timeline,” Winnecke acknowledged. “We feel if we don’t have an aggressive timeline, it delays the project.”
Organizers intend to lobby in the state capitals of Frankfort and Indianapolis as well as in Washington, D.C. But they also want to change local perceptions.
“We have had citizens thinking it won’t happen in their lifetime,” Brad Schneider, president of the Henderson Chamber of Commerce, told reporters.
“We have to talk about it being inevitable, not impossible,” Schneider said ....
“BridgeLink” — getting an I-69 bridge constructed here — “will happen,” the Evansville mayor declared. “It will happen in the next five to eight years,” assuming three years of lobbying and preconstruction environmental and design work, followed by a five-year construction timetable.

Austin also spoke at the BridgeLink announcement ceremony:

Quote
“But I-69 will not be complete and will not bring economic growth to our area until the supporting bridge is built across the river here,” Henderson Mayor Steve Austin declared ... As you know, those structures are getting older,” Austin said. “One is almost 50 years old and the other is (80) years old.”

At least they have set a goal.

edit

The article includes a photograph from the announcement ceremony.  Of interest from the photo is an I-69 shield that has a red bridge at the top of the shield:

(http://i.imgur.com/uazSHHa.png)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on October 19, 2013, 09:30:04 AM
http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/funding-i69-construction-uncertain-indiana-kentucky-57197/

Here's a pretty inaccurate story from WTIU, the PBS station in Bloomington, IN, mainly focusing on the Evansville bridge with some footage and interviews from the I-69 conference in Madisonville, KY.  They do compare Kentucky's I-69 construction to Indiana's and it's pretty funny.

Basically:
1) Acts like Kentucky's I-69 costs are so much cheaper than Indiana's just because they "aren't building new roads", no mention of Kentucky's roads already being near-Interstate quality parkways.
2) Says there's "no money for I-69 left in Indiana" when the state budget has a $400 million "Major Moves 2020" fund set aside.
3) Says only 3 states are working on I-69 (not the case) and implies all the others completely stopped working on it.
4) Uses a graphic from Wikipedia showing the current state of the road to show the state of the road once the segment to Bloomington is complete
5) Implies that Mike Pence is going to install tolls on the road to Indianapolis to fund I-69
6) Says "we don't know what Indiana is going to do to finish the road" when Section 5 is already up for bid as a public/private partnership
7) Implies that Evansville doesn't care about finishing the road to Indianapolis but wants their bridge.
8) Shows the 8th District Congressmen in Indiana who is part of the I-69 congress acting like they can't get federal money (not sure what the point of him being in the I-69 caucus is!)  I'm guessing he may have been asked a question about funding the road to Indy and not the bridge.
9) Implies that no federal money is being used for I-69 construction
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on October 19, 2013, 12:27:07 PM
Isn't it cheaper to make minor upgrade to existing roads than to build brand new ones though?  The only new alignment I-69 in KY is the Ohio River Bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on October 20, 2013, 08:10:41 AM
http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/funding-i69-construction-uncertain-indiana-kentucky-57197/

Here's a pretty inaccurate story from WTIU, the PBS station in Bloomington, IN, mainly focusing on the Evansville bridge with some footage and interviews from the I-69 conference in Madisonville, KY.  They do compare Kentucky's I-69 construction to Indiana's and it's pretty funny.

Basically:
1) Acts like Kentucky's I-69 costs are so much cheaper than Indiana's just because they "aren't building new roads", no mention of Kentucky's roads already being near-Interstate quality parkways.
2) Says there's "no money for I-69 left in Indiana" when the state budget has a $400 million "Major Moves 2020" fund set aside.
3) Says only 3 states are working on I-69 (not the case) and implies all the others completely stopped working on it.
4) Uses a graphic from Wikipedia showing the current state of the road to show the state of the road once the segment to Bloomington is complete
5) Implies that Mike Pence is going to install tolls on the road to Indianapolis to fund I-69
6) Says "we don't know what Indiana is going to do to finish the road" when Section 5 is already up for bid as a public/private partnership
7) Implies that Evansville doesn't care about finishing the road to Indianapolis but wants their bridge.
8) Shows the 8th District Congressmen in Indiana who is part of the I-69 congress acting like they can't get federal money (not sure what the point of him being in the I-69 caucus is!)  I'm guessing he may have been asked a question about funding the road to Indy and not the bridge.
9) Implies that no federal money is being used for I-69 construction

Also, the caption under the picture, "A barge moves across the Ohio River near Evansville. Right now, there is no bridge to connect Interstate 69 from Kentucky to Indiana" is misleading. Someone unfamiliar with the area may think there is no bridge to Kentucky at all in the Evansville area. The mayor's cul-de-sac comment adds to that confusion.

Isn't it cheaper to make minor upgrade to existing roads than to build brand new ones though?  The only new alignment I-69 in KY is the Ohio River Bridge.
Of course, but only Kentucky has freeways to upgrade. This is eluding to why Indiana didn't select the US 41/I-70 route which is very indirect and would still have been very costly.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 09, 2014, 12:17:33 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/oct/14/advocates-want-i-69-bridge-built-eight-years/)

The above-linked October 14 article discusses the involvement of Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of Southwestern Indiana Christy Gillenwater in BridgeLink:

Quote
Proponents of building an Interstate 69 bridge across the river between Henderson and Evansville said Monday they want to see the span completed within eight years.
“That’s our objective,” Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke said at a news conference announcing the creation of BridgeLink, a Henderson-Evansville partnership to campaign for the bridge
....
“We’re getting set for what we think will be a very aggressive agenda,” Christy Gillenwater, president and CEO of the Evansville-based chamber, said. “We all think the bridge will be a reality if we all work aggressively together.” ....
The BridgeLink board is made up of representatives from both sides of the river ....
Evansville representatives include Vice Chairman Bob Koch, Winnecke, Gillenwater, Evan Beck, Ed Hafer, Jeff Mulzer, Mike Schopmeyer and Chris Traylor.

Winnecke and Gillenwater both recently included the I-69 Ohio River Bridge as an essential component of the top priority of completing I-69 both north and south of Evansville.  This January 6 article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jan/06/packed-house-for-2013-lunch-with-the-mayor/) reports that Winnecke discussed the importance of the bridge at a recent Lunch with the Mayor event:

Quote
The first project mentioned is the Interstate 69 Bridge spanning the Ohio River, connecting Indiana and Kentucky. Mayor Winnecke is a board member of BridgeLink, a nonprofit organization launched as a joint effort between The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana and the Henderson-Henderson County Chamber of Commerce. He called the completion of I-69 northbound and southbound “the most important infrastructure project of our lifetime in this area.”

Similarly, Gillenwater recently wrote a January 6 Letter from the president of the Chamber of Commerce (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jan/06/ebj_chamberpresidentletter/) in which she expressly includes the I-69 Ohio River Bridge as part of the Chamber's top legislative priority of the completion of I-69:

Quote
The Chamber’s board of directors recently adopted a magnanimous 2014 Legislative Agenda ....
Our top 5 legislative priorities in 2014 will be:
1. Completion of Interstate 69: Completion of I-69 from Indianapolis to Kentucky with a bridge over the Ohio River. Without question, the completion of I-69 is the most important issue on the minds of our members. It will take all of us to continue our forward momentum, stemming from decades of previous work by countless regional leaders.

They continue to bang the drum .......
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 09, 2014, 02:14:07 PM
Eight years? I think someone went to Colorado and partook of their new legal substance if they think the bridge can be done in eight years, if the I-265 bridge is a bellwether.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on January 09, 2014, 05:56:40 PM
Isn't it cheaper to make minor upgrade to existing roads than to build brand new ones though?  The only new alignment I-69 in KY is the Ohio River Bridge.

The cheaper option is situation dependent based on type of minor upgrade, available ROW, roadside development, and/or terrain.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 09, 2014, 10:06:58 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/oct/14/advocates-want-i-69-bridge-built-eight-years/)

The above-linked October 14 article discusses the involvement of Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of Southwestern Indiana Christy Gillenwater in BridgeLink:

Quote
Proponents of building an Interstate 69 bridge across the river between Henderson and Evansville said Monday they want to see the span completed within eight years.
“That’s our objective,” Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke said at a news conference announcing the creation of BridgeLink, a Henderson-Evansville partnership to campaign for the bridge
....
“We’re getting set for what we think will be a very aggressive agenda,” Christy Gillenwater, president and CEO of the Evansville-based chamber, said. “We all think the bridge will be a reality if we all work aggressively together.” ....
The BridgeLink board is made up of representatives from both sides of the river ....
Evansville representatives include Vice Chairman Bob Koch, Winnecke, Gillenwater, Evan Beck, Ed Hafer, Jeff Mulzer, Mike Schopmeyer and Chris Traylor.

Winnecke and Gillenwater both recently included the I-69 Ohio River Bridge as an essential component of the top priority of completing I-69 both north and south of Evansville.  This January 6 article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jan/06/packed-house-for-2013-lunch-with-the-mayor/) reports that Winnecke discussed the importance of the bridge at a recent Lunch with the Mayor event:

Quote
The first project mentioned is the Interstate 69 Bridge spanning the Ohio River, connecting Indiana and Kentucky. Mayor Winnecke is a board member of BridgeLink, a nonprofit organization launched as a joint effort between The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana and the Henderson-Henderson County Chamber of Commerce. He called the completion of I-69 northbound and southbound “the most important infrastructure project of our lifetime in this area.”

Similarly, Gillenwater recently wrote a January 6 Letter from the president of the Chamber of Commerce (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jan/06/ebj_chamberpresidentletter/) in which she expressly includes the I-69 Ohio River Bridge as part of the Chamber's top legislative priority of the completion of I-69:

Quote
The Chamber’s board of directors recently adopted a magnanimous 2014 Legislative Agenda ....
Our top 5 legislative priorities in 2014 will be:
1. Completion of Interstate 69: Completion of I-69 from Indianapolis to Kentucky with a bridge over the Ohio River. Without question, the completion of I-69 is the most important issue on the minds of our members. It will take all of us to continue our forward momentum, stemming from decades of previous work by countless regional leaders.

They continue to bang the drum .......

I could think of so many more projects that are more important in Indiana right now than finishing the questionably useful 69
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on January 10, 2014, 08:04:11 AM
I could think of so many more projects that are more important in Indiana right now than finishing the questionably useful 69

Completing I-69 including the building the Ohio River bridge is important as the southwestern part of the state was certainly overlooked. This new highway could also relieve some of the traffic from I-65 and would provide a faster route to the southern states. The part of I-69 that has questionable value is between Memhis and Shreveport, IMO. The only other Indiana projects (other than those ones underway like the Illiana, the east-end bridge, and SR 641) comparable in value from a statewide perspective are filling the gaps on US 31 north of Indy and widening I-65 and I-70.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 08:26:58 AM
I could think of so many more projects that are more important in Indiana right now than finishing the questionably useful 69

Completing I-69
Maybe.
including the building the Ohio River bridge
Not really. The tie-up is at the at-grades south of the bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on January 10, 2014, 09:31:58 AM
Not really. The tie-up is at the at-grades south of the bridges.

So then how would you alleviate it without a bridge?

Not to mention the bridge is routinely down to one lane.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 09:45:12 AM
Not really. The tie-up is at the at-grades south of the bridges.

So then how would you alleviate it without a bridge?
Gee, I wonder. Too bad there's no way to improve traffic flow on a surface road without bypassing it.

PS: that would be a Kentucky project. Hardly the most important in Indiana.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 10, 2014, 10:27:25 AM
I-69 definitely should go on the US 41 bridge. Then I-69 should bypass Henderson to the east. Then they could save some money. Which I happen to think I-69 is a big waste of money in the first place. And no I'm not a bitter Hautian. If I-69 wouldv'e came to Terre Haute I still would've viewed it as a big waste of money, because US 41 is already a good highway from SR 641 - Evansville. Just like the US 41 bridge, it is a perfectly fine bridge. I do however think a Terre Haute bypass (interstate quality) would be a good idea, becasue US 41 in Terre Haute is not a good highway. Multilaning US 50 from Bedford to Washington wouldv'e been the best way. Then Bloomington has their multilane highway from Bloomington to Evansville for a lot less money.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on January 10, 2014, 11:07:33 AM
I-69 definitely should go on the US 41 bridge. Then I-69 should bypass Henderson to the east. Then they could save some money. Which I happen to think I-69 is a big waste of money in the first place. And no I'm not a bitter Hautian. If I-69 wouldv'e came to Terre Haute I still would've viewed it as a big waste of money, because US 41 is already a good highway from SR 641 - Evansville. Just like the US 41 bridge, it is a perfectly fine bridge. I do however think a Terre Haute bypass (interstate quality) would be a good idea, becasue US 41 in Terre Haute is not a good highway. Multilaning US 50 from Bedford to Washington wouldv'e been the best way. Then Bloomington has their multilane highway from Bloomington to Evansville for a lot less money.

Maybe right through Audubon Park then?

With one span over 80 years old and traffic being restricted to one lane each on probably a monthly basis, it is time to get a new bridge project started.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 10, 2014, 11:44:09 AM
I have a better idea. Upgrade 41 through Henderson.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Indyroads on January 10, 2014, 12:50:17 PM
if it is going to take that long to do the new bridge then they should post (TEMP) I-69 shields like they did when I-5 was being built. CALTRANS had put up TEMP I-5 shields on SR-99. This way the route can be signed continuously until the toll crossing is done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on January 10, 2014, 12:50:53 PM
How about a new US41 bridge a couple of miles upstream and rebuild around east of Henderson? ?
  :biggrin:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on January 10, 2014, 02:26:07 PM
Can we still do "TEMP" routes? When the West Virginia Turnpike was still two lanes, there were "TO I-77" signs in place. (Not sure if I-64 was signed, it was not complete east of Beckley until 1988.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 02:50:17 PM
Can we still do "TEMP" routes? When the West Virginia Turnpike was still two lanes, there were "TO I-77" signs in place. (Not sure if I-64 was signed, it was not complete east of Beckley until 1988.)
They're now FUTURE routes. See I-26 in Asheville, where the eventual plan is to bypass the old freeway to the west.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 10, 2014, 02:56:00 PM
I still say the best idea would've been to have just multilaned US 50 from Bedford - Washington and left everything else alone. It would've been a lot cheaper and more projects in Indiana that are truly needed would've gotten done a lot sooner than they are now.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 10, 2014, 07:00:11 PM
I have a better idea. Upgrade 41 through Henderson.

That's a pretty busy commercial strip. The locals would not allow that to happen if it results in a lot of businesses being closed. It would be awfully hard to do a system of frontage roads and grade-separated crossroads through there. About the best that could be done is RIRO's with U-turns at strategically placed traffic lights.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 10, 2014, 08:10:00 PM
I-69 definitely should go on the US 41 bridge. Then I-69 should bypass Henderson to the east. Then they could save some money. Which I happen to think I-69 is a big waste of money in the first place. And no I'm not a bitter Hautian. If I-69 wouldv'e came to Terre Haute I still would've viewed it as a big waste of money, because US 41 is already a good highway from SR 641 - Evansville. Just like the US 41 bridge, it is a perfectly fine bridge. I do however think a Terre Haute bypass (interstate quality) would be a good idea, becasue US 41 in Terre Haute is not a good highway. Multilaning US 50 from Bedford to Washington wouldv'e been the best way. Then Bloomington has their multilane highway from Bloomington to Evansville for a lot less money.

great if they did that, Indiana wouldn't have to pay a dime.  The us 41 bridge is entirely in kentucky
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 10, 2014, 08:37:48 PM
^^^ Another good point.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on January 10, 2014, 10:43:26 PM
great if they did that, Indiana wouldn't have to pay a dime.  The us 41 bridge is entirely in kentucky

Obviously not true. I'd be curious to know if any of the Ohio River bridges have not been significantly cost shared and since Kentucky "owns" a majority of the river most bridges are in KY. The currently under construction Milton-Madison and Louisville East end bridges are cost shared and would not exist otherwise.

Although, the biggest burden of sub-standard a road (current US41) will be mostly on Henderson. Maybe in time Kentucky will be motivated for a bigger share.

My fantasy would be to just quit arguing the inevitable and just build the damned I-69 bridge, move US41 to collocate with I-69 to south of Henderson and rename the existing US41 as a business route.  Further, when/if the older span of current US41 become unserviceable, its designation as a business route might justify reverting to a single two way bridge.





Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 11:13:12 PM
great if they did that, Indiana wouldn't have to pay a dime.  The us 41 bridge is entirely in kentucky

Obviously not true.

No, it is true. The old river course is north of the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on January 10, 2014, 11:42:53 PM
Seconded. The state line is approximately 1.1 mile north from the northern shore of the Ohio River.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on January 11, 2014, 12:31:42 AM
I was going to jump in there too about the location of the state line, well north of the river, where US-41 crosses. I came through there this week and can testify.

The selected location for the I-69 crossing is about where the Green River flows into the Ohio. At that location, the state line runs near the north bank of the Ohio. Presumably, the states would share the cost, since the bridges will benefit both states.

That does raise the question of who financed the US-41 crossings, back in the day. Although the entire bridges and approaches are in Kentucky, I suspect the cost was shared rather evenly. Does anyone know?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on January 11, 2014, 09:49:06 AM
I have wondered why some creative alternatives to the expensive new bridge solution have not been explored. Could the same technique used for the Milton-Madison Bridge be used to replace the old US 41 bridge? That project cost $103M, I think. I assume the majority of the project cost would be for the bridge itself. Is there enough room create a bypass north of Audubon State Park? It seems as if most of the original bypass route in Kentucky would still be viable.

For that matter, did they ever explore the possibility of buying and leveling some businesses on the US 41 commercial strip in Henderson and building the freeway there with a frontage road for the remaining ones? The US 31 freeway upgrade in Hamilton County, Indiana involved the leveling of many businesses (1 bank, 3 restaurants, 2-3 gas stations, 1 hotel, several stores). I can't imagine that being an expensive option compared to a new terrain route and completely new Ohio River Bridge.

Indiana would have to modify the current I-164/US 41 interchange and it would mess up the Indiana I-69 exit numbering by a mile or two, but that would be a small price to pay. The INDOT two tier numbering strategy would mean that only exits in the south section would need to be renumbered.

I assume the original study explored all options, but I wonder how they settled on one that may be too expensive to build.

BTW, I think Indiana pays 1/3 the cost of the US 41 bridge maintenance despite it being totally in Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on January 11, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
I have wondered why some creative alternatives to the expensive new bridge solution have not been explored. Could the same technique used for the Milton-Madison Bridge be used to replace the old US 41 bridge? That project cost $103M, I think. I assume the majority of the project cost would be for the bridge itself. Is there enough room create a bypass north of Audubon State Park? It seems as if most of the original bypass route in Kentucky would still be viable.

For that matter, did they ever explore the possibility of buying and leveling some businesses on the US 41 commercial strip in Henderson and building the freeway there with a frontage road for the remaining ones? The US 31 freeway upgrade in Hamilton County, Indiana involved the leveling of many businesses (1 bank, 3 restaurants, 2-3 gas stations, 1 hotel, several stores). I can't imagine that being an expensive option compared to a new terrain route and completely new Ohio River Bridge.

Indiana would have to modify the current I-164/US 41 interchange and it would mess up the Indiana I-69 exit numbering by a mile or two, but that would be a small price to pay. The INDOT two tier numbering strategy would mean that only exits in the south section would need to be renumbered.

I assume the original study explored all options, but I wonder how they settled on one that may be too expensive to build.

BTW, I think Indiana pays 1/3 the cost of the US 41 bridge maintenance despite it being totally in Kentucky.

There might have been room up until a year ago, but then a group of well-off investors bought several hundred acres of land north of Audubon and donated it to the state as an expansion of the park. Therefore it would be about impossible to build a bypass through there.

I believe IN & KY split the cost of the older NB bridge. Not sure about the SB. Here is a good resource with a lot of news clippings from Evansville's newspapers. Very helpful: http://local.evpl.org ... You can search for all kinds of stuff there, lots of history on the roads and bridges in the area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 11, 2014, 03:52:49 PM
http://transportation.ky.gov/Pages/Contact-Us.aspx

If anyone wants to know if Indiana pays any for maintenance of the US 41 twin bridges at Henderson, use this form to ask.

(I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps someone will ask and can post the answer.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on January 11, 2014, 06:23:52 PM
I sent the Transportation Cabinet a request for information on Indiana's contribution to the maintenance and construction costs of the US-41 bridges. I'll report back when I get a response.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 11, 2014, 06:24:29 PM
if us 41's bridges are in awful shape, they have 4 bridges they need to build.  It's also crazy that indiana pays for something that isn't even in it's boarders
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 11, 2014, 06:25:21 PM
It's also crazy that indiana pays for something that isn't even in it's boarders
http://www.cincinnatisouthernrailway.org/
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on January 11, 2014, 07:42:19 PM
Good point, NE2. Of course, a government will pay for improvements outside its borders if it stands to benefit its citizens. The US-41 bridges allow citizens of the Evansville area easier access to points south for pleasure or business than the previous alternative (presumably a ferry or other boat-for-hire). They also allow Kentucky citizens easier access to Indiana to conduct business (spend money in the Hoosier economy). As a Hoosier, I've got no problem helping to finance crossings that benefit Indiana. The location is just a detail of little importance.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on January 11, 2014, 08:13:25 PM
I should have been more clear. Agreed, most bridges are in Kentucky, but are not built without Hoosier assistance in funding.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 12, 2014, 12:42:27 PM
Kentucky and its border states split up maintenance and construction costs on many of the bridges.

I'm pretty sure Indiana takes care of the bridges that take KY 69 (Hawesville) and KY 79 (Brandenburg) across the river. Indiana also maintains the Sherman Minton Bridge (I-64) and it was Indiana that initiated the closure last year for emergency repairs.

Ohio replaced the US 23 bridge at Portsmouth and is also building the new Ironton-Russell bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 12, 2014, 02:45:11 PM
If Indiana helps pay maintenance costs on the US 41 bridge, then Kentucky should give Indiana all of the land north of the Ohio River.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Bill C on January 12, 2014, 07:42:15 PM
If Indiana helps pay maintenance costs on the US 41 bridge, then Kentucky should give Indiana all of the land north of the Ohio River.


States don't give up land and the river will change course again.  What is north was once south.  Time and rivers wait for no man but the State remains intact as designated and litigated.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Buck87 on January 12, 2014, 11:17:26 PM
States don't give up land

Especially land with a horse track on it
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on January 13, 2014, 01:03:13 PM
States don't give up land

Especially land with a horse track on it

Exactly!! I don't have a problem with Indiana splitting the cost. There are a lot more Hoosiers in the E'ville metro who this impacts that Kentuckians.

I also don't have a problem with the US 41 bridges being a temporary fix for 69, but a new bridge is needed. E'ville-Henderson is the largest metro on both the Ohio and Mississippi with a single crossing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on January 13, 2014, 05:42:13 PM
I sent the Transportation Cabinet a request for information on Indiana's contribution to the maintenance and construction costs of the US-41 bridges. I'll report back when I get a response.
I got a quick response from David Steele, Branch Manager for Bridge Preservation, Division of Maintenance:
Quote
The State of Indiana contributes 50% of the maintenance costs on the two Ohio River Bridges near Henderson, Kentucky. Kentucky contributes the other 50% of the maintenance costs.

The northbound Ohio River bridge was built as a toll bridge by Indiana with Kentucky participating in one-half the construction costs.

Indiana, Kentucky, and the Federal Highway Administration participated in the cost of the construction of the southbound bridge and approaches.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on January 15, 2014, 12:40:12 AM
Keith Todd, Public Information Officer, KYTC, Department of Highways, Districts One & Two, in response to my email about the US 41 bridges, sent a copy of the press release issued on the 75th birthday of the northbound bridge in 2007:
Quote
U.S. 41 Twin Bridges Northbound Structure Celebrates

75 Years of Service to Travelers

Original Bridge Officially Opened to Traffic in 1932


Henderson, KY. (June 28, 2007) -  When Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Engineers developed plans to run three lanes of traffic on what is normally a two lane bridge, some Henderson-Evansville area commuters thought that a bit unusual.  However, a check of area newspapers from 1932 shows that the original bridge carried three lanes of traffic when it first opened that year.

            According to Chief District Engineer Ted Merryman, traffic was pretty much gridlocked around the bridge the first two days it was open 75 years ago.

“When the first bridge (now carrying northbound traffic) was officially opened to traffic with a three day celebration centered on July 4th, 1932, traffic was gridlocked around the bridge as an estimated 50,000 vehicles try to cross the structure in the first two days,” Merryman said.

                The three day celebration was centered on July 4th, making July 4th 2007 the bridge’s 75th birthday.

                “Few of us can fully comprehend what a true marvel of engineering the first structure must have appeared to be 75 years ago,” Merryman observed.  “The three day celebration mounted by both Henderson and Evansville was fully fitting the structure that has connected Western Kentucky and Southern Indiana economically and socially since.”

To officially open the bridge to traffic, Governor Ruby Lafoon of Kentucky and Governor Harry G. Leslie of Indiana walked from each end of the span to meet in the middle to shake hands.  A boat flotilla gathered from up and down the Ohio River took nearly 40 minutes to pass beneath the bridge.  About two-dozen army planes put on an air show with maneuvers above Dade Park (now Ellis Park) Race Track.   A parade that stretched nearly two miles long celebrating the history of transportation lasted nearly two hours.

                Gayle Alvis with the Kentucky State Library Archives assisted Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Public Information Officer Keith Todd in digging through microfilm files filled with the history of the original bridge.

                “One of the first Henderson Gleaner articles we found described the celebration as, ‘One of the most elaborate celebrations of its kind ever to be staged in the Middle West,’” Alvis said.  “It was estimated that the celebration attracted 100,000 visitors to Henderson.”

                Military cannons were fired from the riverbanks joining with the din of riverboat whistles during the celebration.

                Todd says the cost and magnitude of the bridge building program that included the first U.S. 41 Ohio River Bridge created quite a building boom across Kentucky.

                “The first of the U.S. 41 Twin bridges was built for $2.4 million.  It was one of 11 new bridges built statewide at about the same time for just under $10 million,” Todd said.  “That building boom included the U.S. 60 Green River Bridge at Spottsville that had opened just a few months earlier, as well as other major bridges along the U.S. 60 Corridor.  It was an amazing time of growth and economic expansion across Kentucky and it all came down to improving transportation.”

                Bridge bonds issued to pay for the construction effort were paid off with tolls.  Crossing between Henderson and Evansville required a 30 cent toll for passenger vehicles.  It was five cents for pedestrians who strolled across a sidewalk on the bridge deck.  A toll card for the bridge listed a 5 cent per head charge for “livestock on foot.”

                Ruby Lafoon called the new U.S. 41 highway, “…one of the most important in the nation and the most important traversing Kentucky from North to South.”

                In December 1966 a second bridge was opened to handle southbound traffic with the original bridge handling only northbound traffic as it does today.

The U.S. 41 Twin Bridges, also known as the Bi-State Gold Star Vietnam War Memorial Bridges, carry approximately 40,000 vehicles a day across the Ohio River between Henderson, Kentucky, and Evansville, Indiana.

-30-

Mr Todd also sent along text below, from clippings compiled by Frank Boyett with the Henderson Gleaner.  Mr. Todd said that Mr. Boyette has also done several articles on the Twins that should be available on the Gleaner Website. (Emphasis added below is mine.)
Quote
U.S. 41 Twin Bridges History Notes
From the Opening of the Original Bridge in 1932

Compiled from microfilm archives of the Henderson Gleaner, the Evansville Courier-Press and the Louisville Courier Journal.
  • Opening day the trip from Evansville to Henderson took about two hours.  Traffic was packed solid, both ways.  The distance from the Henderson city limits to the bridge proper was 4 miles. From courthouse to courthouse it is 10.2 miles.
  • Cost of the original bridge was $2.4 million with the federal government paying half, Kentucky paying 1/4th and Indiana paying 1/4th.
  • Both Evansville and Henderson are decorated in bunting and flags, principal streets are lighted with vari-colored electric lights and a general spirit of carnival prevails.
  • Dean William S. Taylor of the University of Kentucky was keynote speaker for a celebration at Bosse Field in Evansville.  Among his observations he said, “Man today is a bridge builder and probably will ever be.  This magnificent structure of engineering genius is not only a gateway between our two states for trading, traveling and the more intimate mingling of people; it is a symbol of the linking together, of the blending into one of the North and the South.  It is a symbol of the oneness of our citizens, who today have the same ideals, the same standards, and the same aspirations.”
  • Army planes flying overhead scattered rose petals over the crowed gathered on the bridge for the dedication.
  • It is estimated that 50,000 automobiles carrying some 200,000 persons crossed the bridge Sunday and Monday.  There were four lanes of traffic on the approaches and three on the bridge and so thick was it that it was creeping along most of the time.
  • A squadron of 22 airplanes led by Jimmy Doolittle zoomed over the river.
  • S.I. Will, a local merchant was credited as being the first southbound traveler to pay the first toll.  George J. Lucas of the Lucas & Wooten Poultry firm of Henderson drove the first northbound car to pay a toll.  At the start of toll charges, 267 vehicles crossed in the first hour, 166 southbound and 101 northbound.
  • The Dixie Bee Ferry at Henderson and the Dade Park Ferry near the bridge were purchased by the Kentucky Highway Commission and continued operating for a time after the bridge was completed.
  • Tolls on the original bridges were removed or “freed” on March 20, 1941, making travel between the two cities more economical and encouraging new commerce.
  • The second of the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges was opened to traffic on December 16, 1966 at a cost of $5 million, further enhancing this historic connection between Henderson and Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 22, 2014, 12:08:53 PM
did they ever explore the possibility of buying and leveling some businesses on the US 41 commercial strip in Henderson and building the freeway there with a frontage road for the remaining ones?

Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:

http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx

In an email, he cautions that, as time has passed, it is now basically an artifact of history:

Quote
Please be advised that a final environmental assessment was never approved by the Federal Highway Administration due to the inability of the Henderson-Evansville MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan being able to demonstrate fiscal constraint with this project included.  Given the inability to pay for the alternatives under consideration at that point in time and due to the passage of time, all work prepared really just becomes background or reference information for a new process that would be required should there become a means to fund this undertaking.

With that in mind, the DEIS does contain some good information about the alternatives that would have incorporated US 41.
Title: US 41 Bridge Replacement Instead of I-69 Bridge?
Post by: Grzrd on January 23, 2014, 05:23:00 PM
KYTC has posted the 2014 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Pages/2014-Highway-Plan.aspx). The Project Listing (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Highway%20Plan/2014RecommendedProjectListing.pdf) section includes preliminary engineering and environmental in 2018 for a possible US 41 bridge replacement as an intermediate solution for an I-69 bridge (page 55/139 of pdf)

(http://i.imgur.com/BnoPeJA.png)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 24, 2014, 02:36:08 PM
Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx
KYTC has posted the 2014 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Pages/2014-Highway-Plan.aspx). The Project Listing (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Highway%20Plan/2014RecommendedProjectListing.pdf) section includes preliminary engineering and environmental in 2018 for a possible US 41 bridge replacement as an intermediate solution for an I-69 bridge (page 55/139 of pdf)

The 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Henderson to Evansville crossing (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Documents/I69%20DEIS.pdf) discusses the disadvantages to Corridors F and G (both of which would have utilized the current bridges and studies of both which were discontinued at an early stage) (pages 63-64/470 of pdf). For example, in regard to Corridor F:

Quote
This corridor did not meet all performance measures of the Purpose and Need Statement, since it did not provide an additional river crossing to US 41. It would have been difficult to construct while keeping it open to traffic and would likely have had adverse impacts on businesses along the corridor during construction.

Sounds like a US 41 bridge rebuild occurring before construction of an I-69 bridge would present severe traffic challenges and economic challenges for businesses along the corridor (of course, a bridge rebuild alone would have less of an impact than an interstate rebuild along the corridor).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 24, 2014, 11:13:40 PM
My guess is that if a new US 41 bridge is built then I-69 will travel with US 41 across the Ohio River and the new I-69 Bridge will never be built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 25, 2014, 01:38:14 AM
My guess is that if a new US 41 bridge is built then I-69 will travel with US 41 across the Ohio River and the new I-69 Bridge will never be built.

I agree, is it really necessary for another bridge when you weigh in the costs?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on January 25, 2014, 03:56:09 AM
IMO the ideal solution would be to build the I-69 bridge and then replace the US 41 bridges as needed; they could probably get away with just the existing southbound bridge until it becomes structurally deficient once the I-69 bridge is in place.

Nexus 7

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on January 26, 2014, 11:06:08 PM
IMO the ideal solution would be to build the I-69 bridge and then replace the US 41 bridges as needed; they could probably get away with just the existing southbound bridge until it becomes structurally deficient once the I-69 bridge is in place.

Nexus 7

I agree. The problem with building a new US 41 bridge and then routing I-69 over it is that is still leaves the metropolitan area with a single crossing between them. If a new I-69 bridge is built, then I can see where it could make sense for US 41 to go down to a single span. Less traffic will be using US 41 and a single span crossing would still allow for a second crossing over the river.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on January 27, 2014, 01:39:40 AM
IMO the ideal solution would be to build the I-69 bridge and then replace the US 41 bridges as needed; they could probably get away with just the existing southbound bridge until it becomes structurally deficient once the I-69 bridge is in place.

Nexus 7

I agree. The problem with building a new US 41 bridge and then routing I-69 over it is that is still leaves the metropolitan area with a single crossing between them. If a new I-69 bridge is built, then I can see where it could make sense for US 41 to go down to a single span. Less traffic will be using US 41 and a single span crossing would still allow for a second crossing over the river.

I'm with Cap on this one. If I'm not mistaken, Evansville is the largest metro area on the Ohio with just one crossing (and yes, I consider the 41 bridges as one). There are times, seemingly more now than in years past, when that's not a good thing. Sometime or another, there will have to be a second crossing. I think people will howl for a bit if it's tolled, but if that's the only way we get one, then so be it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 28, 2014, 04:37:40 PM
Yes Evansville is the largest. Maybe Owensboro should get a second bridge too. Wouldn't Owensboro then be the largest metro area on the Ohio without 2 bridges? Do you see where this is going? A cycle will start with cities saying, "We're the largest with only crossing."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 28, 2014, 04:41:45 PM
Owensboro has two bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 28, 2014, 04:53:37 PM
Soft of, kind of, but not really. The 2nd bridge you speak of is a good 11 miles away from Owensboro.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on January 28, 2014, 07:28:30 PM
Still closer than 25 miles.  Plus Evansville is 2-3 times larger than Owensboro.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on January 28, 2014, 08:42:45 PM
The bridge is there FOR Owensboro however. There would be no reason to build a four-lane cable-suspended bridge if there weren't a major city nearby. Personally, I'd leave the US 41 bridges alone (rebuild them perhaps, or something like that) and build the I-69 bridge upstream a mile or so. The US 41 bridges could be used for the local traffic from Henderson to Evansville, I'd imagine that a lot of the traffic that bridge receives now is for that purpose while the I-69 bridge can serve regional traffic passing through. In a way, that's exactly what the Owensboro bridges do, with US 231 and the Natcher serving as a regional route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 06, 2014, 08:00:51 PM
The 2nd bridge you speak of is a good 11 miles away from Owensboro.
The bridge is there FOR Owensboro however.

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/article_f0f5e933-59a3-5166-8055-7ae0e3452e0e.html?success=1?success=2) reports that Owensboro's mayor apparently wants the William Natcher/US 231 Bridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Owensboro,+KY&hl=en&ll=37.848833,-87.041931&spn=0.220403,0.308647&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.849851,79.013672&oq=owensboro+ky&t=h&hnear=Owensboro,+Daviess,+Kentucky&z=12) to become the I-69 Bridge:

Quote
Delivering his annual State of the City address Thursday, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne called for changing the route of the proposed Interstate 69 that would bring it through Owensboro and eliminate the need to build a new $1 billion bridge across the Ohio River near Henderson.
Payne's proposal to reroute I-69 through Owensboro instead of a Evansville-Henderson corridor makes use of the William H. Natcher Bridge at Maceo, the former U.S. 60 bypass and the Natcher and Western Kentucky parkways.
"Work needs to continue to bring an interstate to the most progressive city in the commonwealth," Payne said. "I-69 should be revisited. A billion dollars or more can be saved by coming an additional 30 miles down the Western Kentucky Parkway and moving north on the Natcher Parkway, saving the need to construct an additional bridge over the Ohio River. This needs to be seriously looked at. Somebody need to explain to me why this should not be done."

Any takers for providing the explanation?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 06, 2014, 08:25:18 PM
The 2nd bridge you speak of is a good 11 miles away from Owensboro.
The bridge is there FOR Owensboro however.

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/article_f0f5e933-59a3-5166-8055-7ae0e3452e0e.html?success=1?success=2) reports that Owensboro's mayor apparently wants the William Natcher/US 231 Bridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Owensboro,+KY&hl=en&ll=37.848833,-87.041931&spn=0.220403,0.308647&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.849851,79.013672&oq=owensboro+ky&t=h&hnear=Owensboro,+Daviess,+Kentucky&z=12) to become the I-69 Bridge:

Quote
Delivering his annual State of the City address Thursday, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne called for changing the route of the proposed Interstate 69 that would bring it through Owensboro and eliminate the need to build a new $1 billion bridge across the Ohio River near Henderson.
Payne's proposal to reroute I-69 through Owensboro instead of a Evansville-Henderson corridor makes use of the William H. Natcher Bridge at Maceo, the former U.S. 60 bypass and the Natcher and Western Kentucky parkways.
"Work needs to continue to bring an interstate to the most progressive city in the commonwealth," Payne said. "I-69 should be revisited. A billion dollars or more can be saved by coming an additional 30 miles down the Western Kentucky Parkway and moving north on the Natcher Parkway, saving the need to construct an additional bridge over the Ohio River. This needs to be seriously looked at. Somebody need to explain to me why this should not be done."

Any takers for providing the explanation?

Don't like this idea, he only wants the road to go through his city because he is the mayor, he makes up an excuse with the so called money saved.  this idea will not happen, they have already started, and in many cases finished the highway, it is going near eville and henderson whether he likes it or not.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 06, 2014, 09:24:19 PM
And where is I-69 supposed to go north of the Natcher Bridge. Do we have to reroute it it all the way up to Washington? Crane? Do we just renumber all of I-69 in Southern Indiana? Especially considering the fact that I-164 is getting a new number. This city has a fetish for interstates apparently, and not just any interstate but a 2-di interstate, 3-dis apparently won't do. But I agree: it won't happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 06, 2014, 09:41:57 PM
Great idea. Now that Kentucky is already committed to spending millions of dollars to upgrade the Pennyrile and the WK/Pennyrile interchange, let's extend I-69 east along the WK (requiring spending even more money to upgrade that portion of the WK), upgrade the WK/Natcher interchange, upgrade the Natcher, convert US 231 to a full freeway on both sides of the river, then run I-69 west along I-64 to meet up with existing I-69.

The only people who are going to use that route are ones who are trying to clinch I-69. All other through I-69 traffic is going to use the Pennyrile and put up with the commercial stretch on US 41 south of the existing bridges, and traffic going to Owensboro is either going to use the Pennyrile and Audubon parkways, or US 431 from the WK (which is signed for Owensboro on an auxiliary exit sign).

Seriously, this is one of the goofier ideas I've heard.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 06, 2014, 10:25:13 PM

The 2nd bridge you speak of is a good 11 miles away from Owensboro.
The bridge is there FOR Owensboro however.

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/article_f0f5e933-59a3-5166-8055-7ae0e3452e0e.html?success=1?success=2) reports that Owensboro's mayor apparently wants the William Natcher/US 231 Bridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Owensboro,+KY&hl=en&ll=37.848833,-87.041931&spn=0.220403,0.308647&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.849851,79.013672&oq=owensboro+ky&t=h&hnear=Owensboro,+Daviess,+Kentucky&z=12) to become the I-69 Bridge:

Quote
Delivering his annual State of the City address Thursday, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne called for changing the route of the proposed Interstate 69 that would bring it through Owensboro and eliminate the need to build a new $1 billion bridge across the Ohio River near Henderson.
Payne's proposal to reroute I-69 through Owensboro instead of a Evansville-Henderson corridor makes use of the William H. Natcher Bridge at Maceo, the former U.S. 60 bypass and the Natcher and Western Kentucky parkways.
"Work needs to continue to bring an interstate to the most progressive city in the commonwealth," Payne said. "I-69 should be revisited. A billion dollars or more can be saved by coming an additional 30 miles down the Western Kentucky Parkway and moving north on the Natcher Parkway, saving the need to construct an additional bridge over the Ohio River. This needs to be seriously looked at. Somebody need to explain to me why this should not be done."

Any takers for providing the explanation?

Save a billion dollars?  The route only makes sense if...

No, I'm not going to argue with nonsense.

The Evansville media is always full of silly bits about wanting to be the next Owensboro (in other words, develop its waterfront).  This is because Evansville has a pretty forlorn and under-exploited riverfront.  Beyond that, Owensboro really has very little on Evansville.  Nonsense pronouncements like this give voters in Owensboro something to feel good about, and reason to vote for the guy who said it. 

I don't dislike Owensboro (who could hate the home of Bill Monroe?).  If I was an Owensboroan and saw that Henderson (Henderson!) was the one getting the mainline, I'd be annoyed, too.  But this is just empty boosterism. 

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 07, 2014, 03:11:52 AM
Our mayor has done a lot of good for the city.  He's had some really good ideas.  This ain't one of 'em.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on February 07, 2014, 12:31:22 PM
This would be a world class "bait and switch".  Build the Evansville-Bloomington leg, then change to pick up Jasper and Owensboro.

To make it work, they would have to build new terrain from Dale (US 231/I-64) to somewhere between Crane and Washington. Or crazier still, they could go all the way back to the early days of planning and divert I-69 to Bedford, IN.

I don't see it happening.




Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on February 07, 2014, 01:39:44 PM
Owensboro...Hmm. Moonlight Barbeque   :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 07, 2014, 02:08:10 PM
There's a different BBQ joint that the locals prefer over Moonlite that might make a good place to eat if someone in the Owensboro area wants to host a meet to look at the US 60 construction.

There was a fire at Moonlite not too long ago but I don't think it was destroyed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on February 07, 2014, 05:05:56 PM
There's a different BBQ joint that the locals prefer over Moonlite that might make a good place to eat if someone in the Owensboro area wants to host a meet to look at the US 60 construction.

There was a fire at Moonlite not too long ago but I don't think it was destroyed.

Times have changed since I lived there in '86-87
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 09, 2014, 12:47:07 PM

Quote
"Work needs to continue to bring an interstate to the most progressive city in the commonwealth," Payne said.

While the folks from Louisville and Lexington try to get their breath from laughing so hard, Bowling Green, now the states 3rd largest city, would like to address the crowd.

I have nothing against Owensboro, but this is borderline insanity. What's next, Hopkinsville demanding that 69 continue down the Pennyrile and then back up 24 over the lakes? At least there wouldn't be any new terrain construction and not any more out of the way than Madisonville-Beaver Dam-Owensboro-Dale back to 69 route.

If Owensboro wanted to be near a mainline 2di, they should have worked to bring 64 farther south in the early 60's.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 09, 2014, 06:25:44 PM
I would aver that at this point, it is more reasonable to move Owensboro.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on February 09, 2014, 06:52:39 PM
Mayor Payne, why don't you have the Army Corps of Engineers come to your fair city and cut it loose from the rest of Kentucky? You can let it float down the river, until you get to the confluence of the Green River. Throw down your anchor at that point, 'cause that's where I-69 is coming through.

You're welcome.

He makes me ashamed to admit that I'm related to Paynes, though most of them have to good sense to spell it Paine, like the patriot Thomas Paine.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on February 09, 2014, 06:55:32 PM
If Owensboro wanted to be near a mainline 2di, they should have worked to bring 64 farther south in the early 60's.

It would be much easier to just upgarde and sign the Audubon and Natcher Parkways as an even I-5x.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 09, 2014, 06:59:08 PM
He can move his hopes to i-67 going through his city, but that highway will never be built
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: english si on February 10, 2014, 09:03:24 AM
It would be much easier to just upgarde and sign the Audubon and Natcher Parkways as an even I-5x.
I-58: Lexington - Elizabethtown - Owensboro - Henderson.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 10, 2014, 05:04:19 PM
The 2nd bridge you speak of is a good 11 miles away from Owensboro.
The bridge is there FOR Owensboro however.

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/article_f0f5e933-59a3-5166-8055-7ae0e3452e0e.html?success=1?success=2) reports that Owensboro's mayor apparently wants the William Natcher/US 231 Bridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Owensboro,+KY&hl=en&ll=37.848833,-87.041931&spn=0.220403,0.308647&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.849851,79.013672&oq=owensboro+ky&t=h&hnear=Owensboro,+Daviess,+Kentucky&z=12) to become the I-69 Bridge:

Quote
Delivering his annual State of the City address Thursday, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne called for changing the route of the proposed Interstate 69 that would bring it through Owensboro and eliminate the need to build a new $1 billion bridge across the Ohio River near Henderson.
Payne's proposal to reroute I-69 through Owensboro instead of a Evansville-Henderson corridor makes use of the William H. Natcher Bridge at Maceo, the former U.S. 60 bypass and the Natcher and Western Kentucky parkways.
"Work needs to continue to bring an interstate to the most progressive city in the commonwealth," Payne said. "I-69 should be revisited. A billion dollars or more can be saved by coming an additional 30 miles down the Western Kentucky Parkway and moving north on the Natcher Parkway, saving the need to construct an additional bridge over the Ohio River. This needs to be seriously looked at. Somebody need to explain to me why this should not be done."

Any takers for providing the explanation?

Owensboro might get an I-67 from Washington, IN to Bowling Green, KY. No chance on getting I-69. I think US 31 north of Indy may become I-67 as well.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 10, 2014, 08:15:38 PM
It would be much easier to just upgarde and sign the Audubon and Natcher Parkways as an even I-5x.
I-58: Lexington - Elizabethtown - Owensboro - Henderson.

So basically we would have a 2nd interstate route linking Lexington with Evansville-Henderson. While it does seem ridiculous to have a 2nd route just so Owensboro can be on a mainline 2-di, I did drive that back from Lexington a couple of times when the New Albany 64 bridge was closed and it was close to rush hour in Louisville.

67 all the way to Washington seems silly, but if it is that important for Owensboro, then maybe route 67 from Bowling Green to Henderson. No new terrain construction and it's not duplicating an existing route. It could be sold as an access route for Bowling Green to points west such as St. Louis.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 10, 2014, 08:48:16 PM

So basically we would have a 2nd interstate route linking Lexington with Evansville-Henderson. While it does seem ridiculous to have a 2nd route just so Owensboro can be on a mainline 2-di, I did drive that back from Lexington a couple of times when the New Albany 64 bridge was closed and it was close to rush hour in Louisville.

Last time I went to (through) Owensboro, I did 64-265-841-60. There's a bit of a slowdown along the 31W portion, but I wonder if that couldn't be skirted by taking I-65 south to KY 313 over to US 31W?

West of US 31W, US 60 moves fairly well despite the 55 mph speed limit and there are only a handful of traffic lights.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 11, 2014, 01:03:06 PM
THe I-67 route was proposed by some southern Indiana towns as well. It's goal was to make a second route / bypass around Louisville from Indy-Nashville. I sort of doubt I-67 will ever happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 12, 2014, 03:30:41 AM
I wish they'd just drop the whole idea of moving I-69, or building I-67 ... whatever. It's not happening, not in this lifetime.

What they MIGHT be able to pull off, and it would cost literally a few thousand dollars versus millions, is this:
* Re-assign U.S. 60 to Kentucky 425, the Pennyrile Pkwy. between exits 76 & 77, and the Audubon Parkway
* Do the same with U.S. 231 on the Natcher Parkway.

Both 60 and 231 are well-known roads that span significant distances (60 is over 2600 miles long and 231 is over 900), and while they don't have the supposed "cachet" of a red-white-and-blue shield, I dare say this would make good sense.  Anyone can find them on a map.

And the cost would be mere pocket change.  They could even keep the 60 and 231 designations on the old roads as "Alternate" or "Business" routes as the case may be, or redesignate them as state highways.

UPDATE, 5:50 a.m. WEDNESDAY: My curiosity finally got the better of me as to the difference in distance from I-69 & I-64 to the cloverleaf of the WK & Pennyrile between the accepted route of I-69 as it will be until the bridge is built (I-164 - U.S. 41 - Pennyrile) and Ron Payne's way (I-64 - U.S. 231 - U.S. 60 - Natcher - WK), and it adds up to 77 miles versus 135.  I cannot for the life of me even fathom why the man even thinks this is a remotely valid option.  Deep down, I gotta believe people would pay a toll to cross a bridge to keep from having to drive 58 miles out of the way.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 12, 2014, 09:31:59 AM
The plan is still to convert the Audubon to a 3di of 69, correct?

I understand Evansville has more growth north, towards I-64, but a 3-di Audubon is about the same distance as I-164 is. It is also about the same distance as I-565 to Huntsville. Both cities are considerably larger than Owensboro, and it seems to serve them well. Columbus, GA also comes to mind.

With 69 running along the east of Evansville-Henderson, it actually may be a little shorter than I-164. Regardless, it will connect Owensboro sufficiently to the grid. Once the bridge is completed, it will also provide quicker access between Owensboro and Evansville. Maybe that is what Payne is concerned about.

As someone who has lived in this area most of my life, I have never understood the political divisiveness that exists between Owensboro, Evansville and even Henderson to a lesser extent. It almost seems competitive, especially from the Owensboro viewpoint. If the three communities would work and PLAN together for a common good, I think all three would benefit. For example, would we get better air service if an Evansville-Owensboro Int'l was built near where 69 and the Audubon-3di would intersect in Henderson County? The Tri-Cities in TN, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill and Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point are all examples of how progressive a 3-city region can be if there is joint cooperation.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 12, 2014, 12:26:10 PM
As I was saying, with even very loose ties to that area, I hear it.  There's a lot of "Why aren't we doing X?  Owensboro's doing it."  Evansville-Henderson is a significantly larger MSA and is not really what I'd call threatened by Owensboro.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 14, 2014, 09:31:01 PM
Moving I-69 ain't gonna happen. This quote is from KYTC Secretary Mike Hancock:

Quote
“The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet does not plan to reroute Interstate 69 through Owensboro.  Deviating from the congressionally designated Interstate 69 corridor would prove costly and be difficult to implement.  The routes suggested through Owensboro are not compliant with federal interstate standards, nor is it the most direct and efficient route for motorists. We appreciate Mayor Payne’s input on the project, but the Cabinet will continue on the course that has been set.”
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 15, 2014, 01:01:51 AM
Ron Payne is really serious about this nonsense. He was in Frankfort earlier in the week, and went to the Evansville Mayor's office yesterday, bringing along flyers made with a line through a red circle over Evansville-Henderson.

http://www.planning.org/news/daily/story/?story_id=195482953

http://www.courierpress.com/photos/galleries/2014/feb/13/evansville-owensboro-mayors-meet-discuss-i-69/?partner=popular

I thought he was wanting the route to follow 64 to Dale, and then upgrade 231. Instead, he is wanting a new road from Washington. I don't see how new terrain construction from Washington to Dale, along with improving 231 from Dale to Owensboro can save a billion dollars versus a new bridge. Does this clown not realize the road is already built to Evansville?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tvketchum on February 15, 2014, 09:39:20 AM
The good mayor should have been beating this drum years ago, before the investment Indiana made in "cementing" the current route.....
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 15, 2014, 10:16:51 AM
Quote
Henderson County Judge-Executive Hugh McCormick said Payne was "very aggressively" pushing for a dramatic I-69 route change on Tuesday in Frankfort, during a social event for local government officials and Kentucky legislators.

He was probably drunk.  :D
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on February 15, 2014, 10:27:07 AM
The good mayor should have been beating this drum years ago, before the investment Indiana made in "cementing" the current route.....

I just don't see Indiana ever agreeing to a route via Owensboro.  It just does not serve what Indiana needs, and that was a route between Indy and Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 15, 2014, 11:14:10 AM

Quote
Henderson County Judge-Executive Hugh McCormick said Payne was "very aggressively" pushing for a dramatic I-69 route change on Tuesday in Frankfort, during a social event for local government officials and Kentucky legislators.

He was probably drunk.  :D

Eventually he's going to have realize that after a certain point this mostly just makes Owensboro look bad.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: rte66man on February 15, 2014, 06:51:48 PM

Quote
Henderson County Judge-Executive Hugh McCormick said Payne was "very aggressively" pushing for a dramatic I-69 route change on Tuesday in Frankfort, during a social event for local government officials and Kentucky legislators.

He was probably drunk.  :D

Eventually he's going to have realize that after a certain point this mostly just makes Owensboro look bad.

He doesn't care how he looks to anyone but Owensboro voters. He's "fighting for them" (and reelection of course).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 15, 2014, 06:53:02 PM
Why is this guy even attempting to get I-69? Like I said, personally I feel I-69 is a huge waste of money. If a better route was needed then US 50 could've been 4 laned from Bedford-Washington. Bypasses could've even been built around Loogotee and Shoals for all I care. IMO there was already a good route from Indy-Evansville via Terre Haute. SR 641 would've helped that traffic a lot. The current route from Canada to Mexico is also shorter than the one I-69 will take them on. There is also a good route from Indy-Memphis already.
My point is that more money doesn't need to be wasted on this project.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on February 15, 2014, 07:31:01 PM

Quote
Henderson County Judge-Executive Hugh McCormick said Payne was "very aggressively" pushing for a dramatic I-69 route change on Tuesday in Frankfort, during a social event for local government officials and Kentucky legislators.

He was probably drunk.  :D

Eventually he's going to have realize that after a certain point this mostly just makes Owensboro look bad.
Mayor Payne has been up in Toronto, partying with Rob Ford, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 15, 2014, 09:00:00 PM

Quote
Henderson County Judge-Executive Hugh McCormick said Payne was "very aggressively" pushing for a dramatic I-69 route change on Tuesday in Frankfort, during a social event for local government officials and Kentucky legislators.

He was probably drunk.  :D

Eventually he's going to have realize that after a certain point this mostly just makes Owensboro look bad.
Mayor Payne has been up in Toronto, partying with Rob Ford, I'm afraid.

haha smoking that crack pipe in all seriousness though, why didn't this guy mention this when it actually would have been a possibility, before they built what is there now?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 15, 2014, 09:29:09 PM
haha smoking that crack pipe in all seriousness though, why didn't this guy mention this when it actually would have been a possibility, before they built what is there now?

Probably wouldn't have done any good. Indiana wanted to connect Evansville to Indianapolis. Not Dale to Indy.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 15, 2014, 09:32:17 PM
I kind of find it funny that three posts up, the guy from Terre Haute (along with that town I believe) wants/wanted I-69 to travel through their community, and the mayor of Owensboro wants I-69 to run through his town, and instead it is Bloomington, the one community in Indiana that does not want the interstate (though many there actually are okay with it) that gets I-69.

And don't worry, I'm not 100% on board of the financial justifications for the project or the new bridge, but I look at a state map and know that one quarter of the state wasn't really covered with an interstate and that's what this project covered. On that note, I'm sure Indianapolis gives less than a crap about Owensboro, so there goes your new-terrain highway from Dale to Washington. Jasper and Huntingburg bypasses however....
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on February 15, 2014, 10:58:45 PM
Jasper and Huntingburg bypasses however....

Mayor Payne visited the wrong city in Indiana. I'm sure E-ville's mayor dumped those brochures where they belonged, in the round file.

If Payne had visited the mayors of Jasper and Huntingburg, he likely would have found receptive ears to upgrading the hell out of 231. And that would have done Owensboro a lot more good than a bunch of crazy talk about rerouting 69. US 231 will probably never get upgraded to interstate status, but an expressway, at least to Crane, could probably be justified and would sure boost the area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 16, 2014, 09:09:26 AM
http://www.scribblemaps.com/create/#id=RwCTXQIxPM

I think I-69 should go to Oklahoma. Then no new bridge would be needed at all. The link above shows where I-69 should've went.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on February 16, 2014, 09:48:34 AM
Most of the article is behind a paywall, but Rand Paul says while in a meeting in Owensboro that he'll "look into it" if asked by Ron Payne.

http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_dff35132-3799-5774-8d41-09d2c30bdcde.html

Quote
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said that if Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne asks him to look into the possibility of rerouting Interstate 69 through Owensboro, then he will do it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 16, 2014, 09:54:09 AM
Maybe Owensboro could seek stimulous money from the feds to give to Indiana for the cost of the reroute.  :banghead:

Maybe they could get some more stimulous money so Kentucky can build a new freeway for I-69 from Owensboro to Madisonville.

This is my modest proposal!  :clap:
Title: Rand Paul To Enter I-69 Ohio River Bridge Debate?
Post by: Grzrd on February 16, 2014, 10:03:40 AM
Most of the article is behind a paywall, but Rand Paul says while in a meeting in Owensboro that he'll "look into it" if asked by Ron Payne.
http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_dff35132-3799-5774-8d41-09d2c30bdcde.html

Here are parts of the (behind paywall) article (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_dff35132-3799-5774-8d41-09d2c30bdcde.html?success=2) reporting that Rand Paul "will look into it if the mayor asks me":

Quote
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said that if Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne asks him to look into the possibility of rerouting Interstate 69 through Owensboro, then he will do it.
Paul, a Bowling Green Republican, was in Owensboro Saturday night to attend the Bourbon Ball, a fundraiser hosted by Owensboro Rotary Club at the Owensboro Convention Center.
Paul said he had just heard about the I-69 rerouting discussions, including that the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Secretary had termed the current route "congressionally designated."
"I'm not aware that anyone has ever asked me where the roads go," Paul said
, "but I will look into it if the mayor asks me. I'm not saying I can do anything, but we can look at it."
Payne has been floating a plan that would reroute I-69 from Washington, Ind., to the William H. Natcher Bridge at Maceo, through Owensboro and toward Bowling Green using the Natcher Parkway.
That path would save about $1 billion since a new bridge would not have to be built over the Ohio River at Evansville, Payne said.
The route now being pursued would extend I-69 south from I-164, east of Ellis Park, across a new bridge to be built and then connecting with the Pennyrile Parkway south of Henderson.
Payne talked up his rerouting plan to Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke Friday, and Winnecke did not get on board.
Despite getting rebuffed by both Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock and Winnecke, Payne said he will continue to push for officials to give the option a review. And he is continuing to push to see a study that examines the Natcher and Audubon parkways as well as the former U.S. 60 Bypass to determine what it would take to bring them up to Interstate standards.
Owensboro and Daviess County officials also have been part of a multistate movement to create a new Interstate 67 that would connect to I-69 at Washington, Ind., and then on to the Natcher bridge, following U.S. 60 into Owensboro and on to Bowling Green via the Natcher parkway and connecting to I-65.
Payne told the Messenger-Inquirer Friday that he would take either one, but he thinks I-69 is the best bet. He said Evansville officials will not support proceeding with I-67 until I-69 is built.

It simply sounds like Paul is unfamiliar with Congressionally designated corridors.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 16, 2014, 11:41:54 AM
This all just proves my point about how anal FHWA is about Interstate standards.

The average motorist is not going to know the difference between an Interstate and one of the Kentucky parkways. Even if the medians aren't as wide on the Audubon or Natcher as they are on I-24, the Kentucky parkways are still a lot more modern than I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, Pa.

Eliminate the old toll plaza cloverleafs, stick I-xxx signs on the Audubon and Natcher, and be done with it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on February 16, 2014, 04:41:49 PM
This all just proves my point about how anal FHWA is about Interstate standards.

The average motorist is not going to know the difference between an Interstate and one of the Kentucky parkways. Even if the medians aren't as wide on the Audubon or Natcher as they are on I-24, the Kentucky parkways are still a lot more modern than I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, Pa.

Eliminate the old toll plaza cloverleafs, stick I-xxx signs on the Audubon and Natcher, and be done with it.

I do have a stupid question, why did Kentucky build toll plazas that way?  Illinois has a similar system, toll plazas every so often, but all of them are on the mainline away from exits, not under bridges.  Even the two plazas (now moved) on I-88 west of Aurora in the middle of the interchanges were not set up under bridges with cloverleafs.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on February 16, 2014, 06:40:17 PM
As I hear more about Mayor Payne, I get more and more convinced that he is a refugee from Alanland. :spin:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rover_0 on February 16, 2014, 07:09:55 PM
This all just proves my point about how anal FHWA is about Interstate standards.

The average motorist is not going to know the difference between an Interstate and one of the Kentucky parkways. Even if the medians aren't as wide on the Audubon or Natcher as they are on I-24, the Kentucky parkways are still a lot more modern than I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, Pa.

Eliminate the old toll plaza cloverleafs, stick I-xxx signs on the Audubon and Natcher, and be done with it.

It's more of a fictional thread idea, but I've thought for a while now that there should be a secondary tier to the Interstate system with looser standards. Substandard expressways, super-2s, and non-freeway-to-freeway interchanges could be part of this system.

I'll plan on a fictional thread for this very thing.

</tangent>
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on February 16, 2014, 07:14:53 PM
It's more of a fictional thread idea, but I've thought for a while now that there should be a secondary tier to the Interstate system with looser standards. Substandard expressways, super-2s, and non-freeway-to-freeway interchanges could be part of this system.
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4397
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 16, 2014, 10:02:27 PM

I do have a stupid question, why did Kentucky build toll plazas that way?  Illinois has a similar system, toll plazas every so often, but all of them are on the mainline away from exits, not under bridges.  Even the two plazas (now moved) on I-88 west of Aurora in the middle of the interchanges were not set up under bridges with cloverleafs.

Kentucky charged different rates for entering/exiting the toll road vs. going straight through. For instance, the old toll booth at the KY 11 exit of the Mountain Parkway (in this case, the toll plaza was built on top of the bridge, not under it) charged 50 cents for through traffic and 25 cents for entering and exiting. There were some toll plazas on the mainline that only levied through tolls.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 18, 2014, 10:08:31 AM
As I hear more about Mayor Payne, I get more and more convinced that he is a refugee from Alanland. :spin:

Update on this situation: I learned yesterday that the study that the mayor wants a copy of is not yet finished. It's still in progress. It's hard to give someone something that doesn't exist.

I also heard that reporters who were outside when Payne went to see Evansville's mayor reported a lot of shouting and loud voices behind the closed door. They couldn't hear what was said, but they said the discussion got pretty heated. Also heard that Payne has acted like, for lack of a better term, a total asshole over this whole deal and has destroyed any goodwill between Owensboro and Henderson and Evansville. Not only that, but he managed to offend and anger Bowling Green with some of his rants.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 18, 2014, 11:57:47 AM
As I hear more about Mayor Payne, I get more and more convinced that he is a refugee from Alanland. :spin:

Update on this situation: I learned yesterday that the study that the mayor wants a copy of is not yet finished. It's still in progress. It's hard to give someone something that doesn't exist.

I also heard that reporters who were outside when Payne went to see Evansville's mayor reported a lot of shouting and loud voices behind the closed door. They couldn't hear what was said, but they said the discussion got pretty heated. Also heard that Payne has acted like, for lack of a better term, a total asshole over this whole deal and has destroyed any goodwill between Owensboro and Henderson and Evansville. Not only that, but he managed to offend and anger Bowling Green with some of his rants.

The picture in the Evansville Courier appears to confirm what you are saying about the meeting. Payne looked like he was crawling away from a vicious beatdown.

This is getting quite facsinating for me. I can't recall a time where a mayor actually went to this kind of length to get a highway, which is nearly complete, re-routed out of the way to benefit him solely. What in his mind could make him even think that Indiana would give an ounce of consideration to building 40-50 miles of new terrain interstate, to replace one they just completed, so Owenboro is on 69 instead of Evansville? His antics are entertaining, but I am afraid they could have serious consequences for Owensboro down the road politically. Alienating Evansville, Henderson, Madisonville and Bowling Green could prove disasterous in this era of regional cooperation.

There is alot of commerce between Owensboro and Evansvillle-Henderson. My bet on the next move is that an Owensboro business leader will publicly call Payne out on this. Meawhile, get some more popcorn.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 18, 2014, 11:57:59 AM
As I hear more about Mayor Payne, I get more and more convinced that he is a refugee from Alanland. :spin:

Update on this situation: I learned yesterday that the study that the mayor wants a copy of is not yet finished. It's still in progress. It's hard to give someone something that doesn't exist.

I also heard that reporters who were outside when Payne went to see Evansville's mayor reported a lot of shouting and loud voices behind the closed door. They couldn't hear what was said, but they said the discussion got pretty heated. Also heard that Payne has acted like, for lack of a better term, a total asshole over this whole deal and has destroyed any goodwill between Owensboro and Henderson and Evansville. Not only that, but he managed to offend and anger Bowling Green with some of his rants.

The previous comments made a good point.  they are already building a spur interstate to his city, why does he need another one?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on February 18, 2014, 05:36:14 PM
As I hear more about Mayor Payne, I get more and more convinced that he is a refugee from Alanland. :spin:

Update on this situation: I learned yesterday that the study that the mayor wants a copy of is not yet finished. It's still in progress. It's hard to give someone something that doesn't exist.

I also heard that reporters who were outside when Payne went to see Evansville's mayor reported a lot of shouting and loud voices behind the closed door. They couldn't hear what was said, but they said the discussion got pretty heated. Also heard that Payne has acted like, for lack of a better term, a total asshole over this whole deal and has destroyed any goodwill between Owensboro and Henderson and Evansville. Not only that, but he managed to offend and anger Bowling Green with some of his rants.

The previous comments made a good point.  they are already building a spur interstate to his city, why does he need another one?
Well, maybe they won't be now!  I personally wouldn't cancel the interstate over this silliness, but it would be fitting.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 18, 2014, 06:50:15 PM
I think the Owensboro mayor's plan for I-69 is nonsense, but I do believe this is good example of an instance where a non-freeway Interstate would be a great thing. How many unnecessary billions of dollars have been spent chasing a red, white and blue shield when a less expensive highway would have been more than adequate? I-69 makes no sense, but an expressway I-67 up to I-64 might.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 18, 2014, 08:50:57 PM
I think the Owensboro mayor's plan for I-69 is nonsense, but I do believe this is good example of an instance where a non-freeway Interstate would be a great thing. How many unnecessary billions of dollars have been spent chasing a red, white and blue shield when a less expensive highway would have been more than adequate? I-69 makes no sense, but an expressway I-67 up to I-64 might.

Why isn't the current US 231 good enough?  It's 4 lanes divided and has no traffic lights! Well there's one at US 60. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 18, 2014, 10:02:43 PM
I think the Owensboro mayor's plan for I-69 is nonsense, but I do believe this is good example of an instance where a non-freeway Interstate would be a great thing. How many unnecessary billions of dollars have been spent chasing a red, white and blue shield when a less expensive highway would have been more than adequate? I-69 makes no sense, but an expressway I-67 up to I-64 might.

Why isn't the current US 231 good enough?  It's 4 lanes divided and has no traffic lights! Well there's one at US 60. 

That was my point - the current highways (US 231 and the Natcher) from I-64 to I-65 are good enough. Why is it necessary to conflate the Interstate designation with a freeway?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 18, 2014, 10:05:42 PM
I can't read the full article due to the paywall, but apparently Ron Payne has "called for a solution that works for all involved."

Never negotiate with someone asking you to help them find a compromise between fantasy and reality.

 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 18, 2014, 10:12:04 PM
 
I think the Owensboro mayor's plan for I-69 is nonsense, but I do believe this is good example of an instance where a non-freeway Interstate would be a great thing. How many unnecessary billions of dollars have been spent chasing a red, white and blue shield when a less expensive highway would have been more than adequate? I-69 makes no sense, but an expressway I-67 up to I-64 might.

Why isn't the current US 231 good enough?  It's 4 lanes divided and has no traffic lights! Well there's one at US 60.

Exactly!! He is getting a 20 mile, 3-di spur right into his city. That is more than sufficient for a town of 50K. Evansville has lived with a 20 mile, 3-di spur and it's primary north-south highway being a grade level highway with numerous stoplights for many years. Not to mention, the traffic counts on US 41 are considerably higher than anything that will ever be on US 231 in Southern Indiana.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 18, 2014, 10:16:35 PM
I can't read the full article due to the paywall, but apparently Ron Payne has "called for a solution that works for all involved."

Never negotiate with someone asking you to help them find a compromise between fantasy and reality.


I am thinking of betting house money he comes up with a 69-E and 69-W.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on February 19, 2014, 12:14:46 PM
Needs an I-69C.  And maybe an I-69CE and an I-69CW too.  Of course, I-69C would be I-69CC there.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on February 19, 2014, 12:38:57 PM
Needs an I-69C.  And maybe an I-69CE and an I-69CW too.  Of course, I-69C would be I-69CC there.

How about an I-69F for Owensboro?  You guys can take a wild guess what the F stands for.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 19, 2014, 03:39:52 PM
I can't read the full article due to the paywall, but apparently Ron Payne has "called for a solution that works for all involved."
Never negotiate with someone asking you to help them find a compromise between fantasy and reality.

A free, condensed version of the paywall article (http://surfky.com/index.php/news/local/daviess/45003-ron-payne-i-69-should-go-through-owensboro) reports that there is at least one true believer in Mayor Payne:

Quote
At least one city commissioner is backing him. Immediately following his comments, Commissioner Deborah Nunley called Payne a “fearless leader” and compared him to “a dog with a bone he’s not gonna let go of.” She called on the public to support the mayor in his efforts to get the interstate route changed.

No confirmation whether DeNiro will reprise his role (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZxUhCE5l8) in the movie about Mayor Payne.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 19, 2014, 08:15:47 PM
 “It is time we had an interstate in this community.” -Payne
You already do! It's called i-369!!!

"I think there is a solution that can benefit all communities,” Payne said. “We have an alternative.”
Yes it's called I-369!

It’s time that we get an interstate through the city of Owensboro,” he said. “I’m going to continue to push this unless this commission tells me not to.”

You already do, and the commission already essentially told you to stop talking about it.

ugh this guy is crazy!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 19, 2014, 08:30:38 PM
Wait, no interstate is going to go THROUGH Owensboro. But sadly, I'm sure this is just 2-di envy. 3-di's (unless it's a bypass of a large city) says that you're good enough for an interstate, but not THAT good enough. Evansville of course for years was served by only a 3-di despite being the third largest city in the state, that of course changes this year. Owensboro, which until recently was the third largest in its state, now gets a 3-di and it's not enough. A 2-di dammit, we are never going to be a major metropolis over 100,000+ unless we have a 2-di! Kentucky I'm sure will just let this die down and Indiana will continue as if they heard nothing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on February 19, 2014, 08:49:18 PM
Wait, no interstate is going to go THROUGH Owensboro.
I-69 will almost completely avoid Evansville city limits as well. A Bowling Green-Henderson Interstate would be in Owensboro more than I-69 will be in Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 19, 2014, 08:59:31 PM
Agreed, building new interstates through cities is (mostly) out of style these days.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 19, 2014, 09:38:20 PM
Wait, no interstate is going to go THROUGH Owensboro.
I-69 will almost completely avoid Evansville city limits as well. A Bowling Green-Henderson Interstate would be in Owensboro more than I-69 will be in Evansville.

Key word is "almost". A part of the I-69/SR 66 interchange is in the city limits. See Google Maps (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Evansville,+IN&hl=en&ll=37.973365,-87.452631&spn=0.038837,0.084543&sll=40.47676,-86.137878&sspn=0.149903,0.338173&oq=evansville&t=h&hnear=Evansville,+Vanderburgh,+Indiana&z=14). Evansville and Vanderburgh County have discussed a merger, but that failed in 2012 when put to a vote, but I believe annexation is definitely being considered.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2014, 10:26:49 PM
So if he's shooting for the moon, and with political standoffs often ended when the winner finally tosses the loser a token graceful way out, what does Payne get out of this in the end?  Is there a calculated acceptable result here that Payne has decided he can live with?  Even bad politicians don't throw everything they have at guaranteed losing battles.  Does he just have nothing left to lose?  Is it just to get people talking about Owensboro?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on February 20, 2014, 12:21:04 AM
Maybe he's gonna try to take credit for I-369.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 20, 2014, 01:55:22 PM
Wait, no interstate is going to go THROUGH Owensboro. But sadly, I'm sure this is just 2-di envy. 3-di's (unless it's a bypass of a large city) says that you're good enough for an interstate, but not THAT good enough. Evansville of course for years was served by only a 3-di despite being the third largest city in the state, that of course changes this year. Owensboro, which until recently was the third largest in its state, now gets a 3-di and it's not enough. A 2-di dammit, we are never going to be a major metropolis over 100,000+ unless we have a 2-di! Kentucky I'm sure will just let this die down and Indiana will continue as if they heard nothing.

I've heard it said that KYTC's official response to the mayor was far more polite than many wished it had been. There's sentiment out there for a "FOAD" response.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 20, 2014, 07:31:29 PM
Wait, no interstate is going to go THROUGH Owensboro. But sadly, I'm sure this is just 2-di envy. 3-di's (unless it's a bypass of a large city) says that you're good enough for an interstate, but not THAT good enough. Evansville of course for years was served by only a 3-di despite being the third largest city in the state, that of course changes this year. Owensboro, which until recently was the third largest in its state, now gets a 3-di and it's not enough. A 2-di dammit, we are never going to be a major metropolis over 100,000+ unless we have a 2-di! Kentucky I'm sure will just let this die down and Indiana will continue as if they heard nothing.

I've heard it said that KYTC's official response to the mayor was far more polite than many wished it had been. There's sentiment out there for a "FOAD" response.

That sentiment is building in Owensboro, too.  I talk to anywhere from 50 to 100 people or more every day in my job at Kentucky Wesleyan College, and I've yet to hear from anyone who thinks this is a good idea.  In fact, the last several days' newspapers have drawn quite a crowd as even the college kids think this is funny stuff to follow.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 20, 2014, 11:23:04 PM
http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/in-depth-christy-gillenwater-reacts-to-mayor-payne/46970/NluqQ1WLekC6G9MzbAt8Xg


SW Indiana Chamber CEO Christy Gillenwater discussing the antics of Mayor Payne with WEHT's Brad Byrd.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on February 21, 2014, 12:21:08 AM
Thanks for a very interesting clip. It starts out as a roast of Mayor Payne, but it quickly moves on to a serious discussion of the bridges. The Chamber sees the new bridges connecting Evansville and Henderson as inevitable, and I agree. The question is when they will be built. Judging from this clip and other news I've seen upthread, there is a lot of sentiment that it should be done by 2020. That very optimistic goal may not be attainable, but the number of influential forces that are lining up will put a lot of political pressure on getting it done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 21, 2014, 09:23:24 AM
Thanks for a very interesting clip. It starts out as a roast of Mayor Payne, but it quickly moves on to a serious discussion of the bridges. The Chamber sees the new bridges connecting Evansville and Henderson as inevitable, and I agree. The question is when they will be built. Judging from this clip and other news I've seen upthread, there is a lot of sentiment that it should be done by 2020. That very optimistic goal may not be attainable, but the number of influential forces that are lining up will put a lot of political pressure on getting it done.

That's a lot of work to be done in six years, and I can only imagine the amount of environmental work that will need to be done on a major river crossing like this.

The Brent Spence bridge replacement in Cincinnati is a greater need, and Kentucky will be committing to completing a new 50-mile four-lane Mountain Parkway/KY 114 route between Campton and Prestonsburg by 2020, so I really don't see a 2020 completion date for the I-69 bridges as a reasonable possibility.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2014, 03:41:00 AM
OK, folks ... I'm working on this to submit as an op-ed piece here in Owensboro and perhaps elsewhere, if the need arises.  Could any of you critique this to help me out?  I'd GREATLY appreciate it!  --Jacob Newkirk

Recently, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne raised some eyebrows (and more than a few tempers) by suggesting that the long-settled and already-under-construction route of Interstate 69 be moved from its line from Madisonville through Henderson to Evansville to a route including the Western Kentucky Parkway, William H. Natcher Parkway and U.S. 231.

Now, mind you, I’m an Owensboro resident and proud to be. I’ve seen and appreciated our progress since Payne became mayor.

But this is just a bad idea.

First of all, the road is there, all that’s needed is a bridge.  Owensboro already has two crossings of the Ohio River; Evansville and Henderson have one.  There is no redundancy should something dire happen to one of the aging Twin Bridges – and at 82 and 48 years old, the possibility of that seems ever more likely as they continue to get older.

Mr. Payne suggests that $1 billion could be saved by going his way.  And he might be right – but only to a point.  That’s just in construction costs.  What about the gasoline and diesel fuel that drivers would waste by following his well-out-of-the-way route instead of the road that’s either already Interstate-ready or soon will be once the committed projects in Hopkins, Webster and Henderson counties are done?

It just doesn’t make good sense.

All this proposal has done is anger our neighbors in Henderson and Evansville, whom we should be counting as our friends, by trying to undo what’s long been a done deal.

The thing is, despite the fact that I-69 will eventually have a spur to Owensboro via the Audubon Parkway – it's been planned for years and is in fact signed as a "Future I-69 Spur" – and while many (including our own chamber of commerce) argue that we have to have an Interstate NOW, it could be argued that we really don’t need an Interstate highway at all.

HUH???

You read that correctly.  Owensboro sits at the crossroads of two long-distance U.S. highways – 60 and 231.  To familiarize you, U.S. 231 runs from near Chicago down to Florida, over 900 miles in all, and it happens to parallel the Natcher parkway between Owensboro and Bowling Green.  For its part, U.S. 60 traverses 2,670 miles of this nation from Arizona to Virginia. It is parallel to the Audubon Parkway between Henderson and Owensboro.

So why don’t we “move” those designations to the Natcher and Audubon?  (And, in the case of 60, my proposal would be to add it to the Kentucky 425 by-pass of Henderson, for continuity purposes.)

It wouldn’t cost nearly as much as conversion to an Interstate, and could be accomplished with just the “stroke-of-a-pen” approvals of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), yet I feel the benefits would be nearly the same.  Indeed, it seems entirely possible that by “moving” 60 and 231 to the Audubon and Natcher, the cost would be mere thousands of dollars, and that merely for changing signage.

The existing roads could, as the original route of U.S. 41 from Madisonville to Henderson was, be tagged with the “Alternate” banner, be remade into business routes, or renumbered entirely.

It's the sort of "outside the box" thinking that we ought to be known for.  After all, we didn't have an Interstate when we landed Dana (now Metalsa), Toyotetsu Mid America and U.S. Bank; it seems to me that if we worked hard enough to show companies Owensboro's many other merits, they'd come here, Interstate or no ... just as these examples did.


EDITED 2:11 p.m. CT
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 27, 2014, 06:46:06 AM
Quote
The thing is, Owensboro really doesn’t even need an Interstate highway.

Although many people in this forum have taken that position, I think many corporations only consider sites on Interstates and most cities want the status that a red, white, and blue shield brings. So at best, it is very subjective to say that US highway designations are just as good, and I personally don't question why he would want an interstate designation on a highway in Owensboro. The questionable thing is the suggestion for a modified I-69 routing.

I also would say the end of your text might get too much in the weeds for most people.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 27, 2014, 06:49:56 AM
^^ A good job on the op-ed piece, but, getting an interstate designation does help with industry recruiting. However, I don't know if they take into consideration whether that interstate is a 2di or a 3di. I would argue that the benefits would be the same from getting I-369 designated along the Audubon Parkway than rerouting I-69 or from the I-67 proposal. Huntsville, AL, where I live, is on a 3di as well (I-565), but it reaps the same benefits from an interstate designation than other areas that are along 2di interstates. I haven't heard of any industries not coming to Huntsville due to a lack of interstate access.

I do agree with you on moving US 231 onto the Natcher, but if the Audubon gets I-369, I'd leave US 60 where it is.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2014, 07:24:40 AM
Thanks for the input, guys.  I appreciate it!

The reason I'm not sold on "Owensboro has to have an Interstate" is because, quite honestly, I can sit out in front of my house and see and hear the evidence that we're doing OK without one.  Within a mile of my house, in the Mid-America Airpark, we have a Metalsa (formerly Dana) plant and Toyotetsu Mid America, both of which supply Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana in Princeton, Ind.; a biosciences research facility, and a decent-sized new complex with a few hundred workers for U.S. Bank Home Mortgage, one of three fairly sizable sites they have here.  And there are other businesses there, too.  Could we use more?  Absolutely. And we've got room. The problem is that Payne ought to be courting businesses instead of making us look like we've got no sense.

Quite honestly, I'm probably just venting about this ... but it needed to be put out there, IMHO.  The very idea he's proposing is just foolish. Damned foolish.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 27, 2014, 11:36:23 AM
Quote
The thing is, Owensboro really doesn’t even need an Interstate highway.

Although many people in this forum have taken that position, I think many corporations only consider sites on Interstates and most cities want the status that a red, white, and blue shield brings. So at best, it is very subjective to say that US highway designations are just as good, and I personally don't question why he would want an interstate designation on a highway in Owensboro. The questionable thing is the suggestion for a modified I-69 routing.

I also would say the end of your text might get too much in the weeds for most people.

Toyota built a plant in Princeton off of US 41. Companies will build their sites on any major highway. US 41 in Indiana is a major highway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on February 27, 2014, 01:10:56 PM
Quote
The thing is, Owensboro really doesn’t even need an Interstate highway.

Although many people in this forum have taken that position, I think many corporations only consider sites on Interstates and most cities want the status that a red, white, and blue shield brings. So at best, it is very subjective to say that US highway designations are just as good, and I personally don't question why he would want an interstate designation on a highway in Owensboro. The questionable thing is the suggestion for a modified I-69 routing.

I also would say the end of your text might get too much in the weeds for most people.

Toyota built a plant in Princeton off of US 41. Companies will build their sites on any major highway. US 41 in Indiana is a major highway.

Quite frankly, not everything needs to be an interstate.  However, moving US-231 to the Green River Parkway (why should I care about Natcher?) and moving US-60 to the Audubon Parkway would be very good ideas.  I could never figure out why Kentucky never moved the US highways to the parkways after the tolls were removed.  The Western Kentucky Parkway and Blue Grass Parkway should be US-62, IMHO, as an example.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 27, 2014, 02:03:22 PM
As a former journalist and current PR person, I think you did a really good job.

However, you might want to mention that plans currently call for Owensboro to be served by a three-digit Interstate spur from I-69 and signage indicating such has been posted on the Audubon for years.

I really think the answer lies in getting FHWA to loosen its standards for what can be signed as an interstate. The Audubon and Natcher parkways and the US 60 bypass are a lot more modern than a lot of routes that are signed as interstates (I'm looking at you, I-68 Cumberland, I-70 New Stanton-Washington and I-83 Harrisburg-MD state line). That's an area where Rand Paul might have some influence. The average motorist isn't going to be able to tell the difference between I-69 or I-164 in Indiana vs. the existing Natcher or Audubon.

Fix the toll booth cloverleaf interchanges, slap some Interstate signs on the Audubon and Natcher, and be done with it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2014, 03:14:51 PM
Brandon -- I'm in agreement that moving the parallel highways to the parkways just makes sense.  Quite honestly I don't know why it's never been discussed in-depth.  Seems like a no-brainer.

H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 27, 2014, 10:06:09 PM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 28, 2014, 12:38:17 AM
^^ A good job on the op-ed piece, but, getting an interstate designation does help with industry recruiting. However, I don't know if they take into consideration whether that interstate is a 2di or a 3di. I would argue that the benefits would be the same from getting I-369 designated along the Audubon Parkway than rerouting I-69 or from the I-67 proposal. Huntsville, AL, where I live, is on a 3di as well (I-565), but it reaps the same benefits from an interstate designation than other areas that are along 2di interstates. I haven't heard of any industries not coming to Huntsville due to a lack of interstate access.

I do agree with you on moving US 231 onto the Natcher, but if the Audubon gets I-369, I'd leave US 60 where it is.

As this has played out, I have thought of Huntsville a few times. With a 20 mile 3-di, Owensboro would be set up just like Huntsville, a city several times larger. I travel to Huntsville quite a bit, and can assure Mayor Ron that the city is doing quite well with a 3-di. In fact, once this is done, not only will Owensboro be linked to the interstate grid like Huntsville, they will actually have a better highway network than Huntsville. There is nothing going north/south out of Huntsville even remotely close to the Natcher and US 231 North through Southern Indiana...and there is no mainline east/west interstate 25 miles to the north like Owensboro has with I-64.  With two mainline interstates within 30 miles, a direct 3-di into the city, and the Natcher and US 231 North, Owensboro will actually have a very attractive highway network. Again, much better than the considerably larger and prosperous Huntsville.

As a regular reader of your old TV blog, the op-ed was well done as I expected. I agree with hb that I would play up the positives of the Audubon 3-di conversion.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 28, 2014, 12:46:11 AM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.

A thought I have is that it would be beneficial to have a special designation for US highways that utilize 4 lane, limited-access routes, such as the KY Parkway network. You could call them US Express Routes, same number, but maybe utilize the blue/red colors on a US Shield. The colors of an interstate sign on a US Route sign. This would make perfect sense for US 41 to go over to the Breathitt, US 231 on the Natcher and so on.  For example, it could be referred to as either Express 41 or US 41 Express.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on February 28, 2014, 12:58:12 AM
More like Ownedboro amirite?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 28, 2014, 11:30:03 AM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.

A thought I have is that it would be beneficial to have a special designation for US highways that utilize 4 lane, limited-access routes, such as the KY Parkway network. You could call them US Express Routes, same number, but maybe utilize the blue/red colors on a US Shield. The colors of an interstate sign on a US Route sign. This would make perfect sense for US 41 to go over to the Breathitt, US 231 on the Natcher and so on.  For example, it could be referred to as either Express 41 or US 41 Express.

That's a great idea!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 28, 2014, 11:33:26 AM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.

A thought I have is that it would be beneficial to have a special designation for US highways that utilize 4 lane, limited-access routes, such as the KY Parkway network. You could call them US Express Routes, same number, but maybe utilize the blue/red colors on a US Shield. The colors of an interstate sign on a US Route sign. This would make perfect sense for US 41 to go over to the Breathitt, US 231 on the Natcher and so on.  For example, it could be referred to as either Express 41 or US 41 Express.

That's a great idea!

I'll second that! That is probably one of the best ideas I've heard so far.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 28, 2014, 12:13:01 PM
I've always advocated for blue signs for freeways.  I remember running into the opposite problem during my first trip out to California.  I was on I-5 and running low on gas, so I thought "state route 4 looks important; it should have some services, no?" ... damn, another freeway!

as for expressways, make them color-coded as well.  green?  (Cal. would have to change their route shield for two-lane segments, then.  I am okay with this, having always liked the black and white shields.) 

that said, I would like arterials not signed as expressways.  traffic lights do not count as quality of service.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 28, 2014, 06:23:58 PM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.

Good point ... hadn't really thought of that, but you're definitely right.

And this for Capt. Jack:  Thank you.  I've done a little more tweaking to the post above and hopefully it addresses things a little better.  I will be happy to hear otherwise if more needs to be done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on March 01, 2014, 10:07:12 AM
http://wkyufm.org/post/latest-tug-war-over-i-69-route-pits-owensboro-against-evansville-henderson

Pretty good article about the whole mess.

Quote
Winnecke, along with Kentucky’s top transportation official, Mike Hancock are insistent that the previously charted and approved course for I-69 is set. They cite the millions that have already been spent on planning, research, studies and upgrades to roads.

Hancock, in fact, released the following written statement:

“The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet does not plan to reroute Interstate 69 through Owensboro.  Deviating from the congressionally designated Interstate 69 corridor would prove costly and be difficult to implement.  The routes suggested through Owensboro are not compliant with federal interstate standards, nor is it the most direct and efficient route for motorists. We appreciate Mayor Payne’s input on the project, but the Cabinet will continue on the course that has been set.”

Payne says:
Quote
Wherever the course of I-69 eventually ends up, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne doesn’t appear to be giving up easily.

“We got time, I mean, it’s 8-10 years before you even begin to talk about building a bridge. So, we have time to look at this.  If this is the right course, that was originally proposed, fine.  But if not, then maybe we need someone independent to take a look at this.”

Payne says in addition to his letter to governor Beshear, he’s also asked Senators Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul and Congressman Brett Guthrie to at least take a look at his plan.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy3175 on March 01, 2014, 08:10:49 PM
The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.

Agreed. I have always argued that if it looks like an Interstate (i.e., four lanes, limited/controlled access, etc.) and connects with another Interstate, then it ought to be an Interstate. And if the freeway in question is just below Interstate standard but could become Interstate standard in a reasonable timeframe (such as the 20 or 25 year timeframe that was provided to allow Texas to connect I-2, I-69E, and I-69C to the rest of the Interstate Highway System), then it should be planned and signed as a future Interstate, much as North Carolina has done.

Although we know I-67 is just a proposal from a few politicians that has not yet received approval officially, I think a better solution (rather than moving US highways off original alignments and causing confusion between old and new US 60 or US 231) would be to give the parkways in question the Future I-x69 and Future I-67 designations until such time that they meet full Interstate standards. And I would recommend the same approach for segments of I-66 that are on the parkway system.

I know this approach is opposite what many on this forum seem to prefer, but I believe that moving US highways onto freeways will just allow future generations to kill them off when someone eventually does decide to make the freeway into an Interstate. In my opinion, it's best to leave the US highway on the original alignment (or a modified alignment that is not freeway), as I wish California had done.

Regards,
Andy
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 02:28:20 PM
This shouldn't even be an argument. Owensboro is never going to get I-69. They are going to get the spur I-369. I-69 is finished from Crane to Evansville. Indiana could care less about Owensboro. The goal of I-69 in Indiana is to connect Indy to Evansville, not Indy to Owensboro. I-67 also will probably never happen. A new bridge across the Ohio River is probably never going to happen either, especially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built. An eastern bypass will probably be built around Henderson. Here is my proposal for the whole Ohio River Bridge project.

http://www.scribblemaps.com/create/#id=P_kuh1y__g

Note: I'm aware that my Henderson Bypass cuts through the northern edge of a state park, but it is higher ground than the Ohio River Valley. There are also other ways of getting to the Horse track than US 41.

My plan would probably save Indiana and Kentucky tons of money.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 02, 2014, 03:31:30 PM
This shouldn't even be an argument. Owensboro is never going to get I-69. They are going to get the spur I-369. I-69 is finished from Crane to Evansville. Indiana could care less about Owensboro. The goal of I-69 in Indiana is to connect Indy to Evansville, not Indy to Owensboro. I-67 also will probably never happen. A new bridge across the Ohio River is probably never going to happen either, especially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built. An eastern bypass will probably be built around Henderson. Here is my proposal for the whole Ohio River Bridge project.

http://www.scribblemaps.com/create/#id=P_kuh1y__g

Note: I'm aware that my Henderson Bypass cuts through the northern edge of a state park, but it is higher ground than the Ohio River Valley. There are also other ways of getting to the Horse track than US 41.

My plan would probably save Indiana and Kentucky tons of money.

Why don't they just cosign 41 and 69 over the ohio, then that would save money, do they really need another crossing?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 02, 2014, 03:56:23 PM
especially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built.

???
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on March 02, 2014, 04:47:55 PM
New US 41 bridges have been discussed in some quarters, but they don't solve the issues of redundancy and capacity, unless we're talking adding a third lane in both directions with a breakdown lane to avoid the backups that happen every time there's a wreck on the current bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 02, 2014, 04:57:07 PM
especially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built.
???
New US 41 bridges have been discussed in some quarters

Also, from upthread regarding KYTC's intermediate plans:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg273448#msg273448
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 07:00:52 PM
especially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built.

???

Okay, there is a good chance new ones are going to be built. Even if new bridges aren't going to be built, I-69 should still travel with US 41 across the Ohio. What happens if the US 41 bridges aren't replaced and new I-69 bridges are built? Will the US 41 bridges not be replaced, and then eventually be shut down? It would make since, especially since Kentucky and Indiana would be collecting toll money. Then Evansville and Henderson end up with what they had except they have to pay a buck to get across. No one wants that. A cloverleaf exists at US 41 / I-164, so a new interchange would not be needed in Indiana. Let's save money and help the citizens of the Evansville area out by not making things worse. The businesses of the Henderson area would be helped out with my bypass idea as they would still be getting thru traffic from I-69 who wants to stay at a hotel, get gas, or want to stop for a meal. Signs at my northern and southernmost interchanges could tell motorists to go straight for Henderson services. Kentucky could even call the Pennyrile and US 41 in Henderson "Business I-69." 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 02, 2014, 07:07:47 PM
They won't shut down the US 41 bridges if a new I-69 bridge is built. A lot of work has just been done on the old Owensboro bridge, even with the existence of the new US 231 bridge, so Kentucky will continue to maintain the US 41 bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 07:17:36 PM
Still just replacing the US 41 bridges would cost a lot less. IDK if it's going to cost 2.5 million per bridge or if that's total cost. Let's say it is 5 million dollars total. 5 million plus the cost of an eastern Henderson bypass has to be a lot less than a new 1 billion dollar bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on March 02, 2014, 07:24:15 PM
Still just replacing the US 41 bridges would cost a lot less. IDK if it's going to cost 2.5 million per bridge or if that's total cost. Let's say it is 5 million dollars total. 5 million plus the cost of an eastern Henderson bypass has to be a lot less than a new 1 billion dollar bridge.

I can PROMISE you that it will cost a lot more than $2.5 million to replace even one of the Twin Bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 07:26:24 PM
I'm was just going off of Kentucky's estimates.
Title: Re: US 41 Bridge Replacement Instead of I-69 Bridge?
Post by: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 07:27:56 PM
KYTC has posted the 2014 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Pages/2014-Highway-Plan.aspx). The Project Listing (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Highway%20Plan/2014RecommendedProjectListing.pdf) section includes preliminary engineering and environmental in 2018 for a possible US 41 bridge replacement as an intermediate solution for an I-69 bridge (page 55/139 of pdf)

(http://i.imgur.com/BnoPeJA.png)

Here was the estimate.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on March 02, 2014, 07:32:20 PM
^ $2.5 million just for the EA/EIS, not for any actual construction.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 08:15:43 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 02, 2014, 08:54:58 PM
^ $2.5 million just for the EA/EIS, not for any actual construction.

Not just for environmental, but for all of the design phase in that biennium. That's probably Phase I design, given it's still four years out.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 03, 2014, 01:50:20 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 03, 2014, 06:22:54 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.

The bridges would be grandfathered in to the interstate highway system. The Kansas Turnpike is not interstate quality, but it was grandfathered into the interstate system. These bridges have been there for a long time and they have worked very well. If semis are allowed to use them and they are each 2 lanes wide, then they should be used for the interstate. Not to mention that there is already a cloverleaf at the US 41 / I-164 interchange. The highway is in good shape to carry an interstate. I know that my proposal runs through the northern edge of a park, but it would not be the first park a major highway runs through.

Edge isn't as big of a deal as right through the middle.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: okc1 on March 03, 2014, 09:26:51 PM
I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 03, 2014, 11:58:14 PM

I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.

Plus that's sort of negligibly even I-81 anymore other than simply in name.  It's like the series of glorified ramps that constitute the east end of I-90 before the sign declares it ended well after everyone assumes it already was done. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 04, 2014, 09:09:38 PM

I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.

Plus that's sort of negligibly even I-81 anymore other than simply in name.  It's like the series of glorified ramps that constitute the east end of I-90 before the sign declares it ended well after everyone assumes it already was done. 
Then tell me what those interchanges on Wellesley Island are.  Its four lanes, 65 mph speed limit, service signs at interchanges, interstates standards for four miles from the bridge to Canada.  NY does seem to drop the I-81 signs on the bridge itself though... in terms of signage, I-81 nearly has a gap.

The important difference between I-81 and I-69 is that I-81 was part of the original 1950s system.  I-69 was not.  AASHTO and the FHWA do not and will not ever grandfather in an interstate not part of the original system (this is the very definition of grandfathering in something... to include something that was made before the standard was set).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 05, 2014, 01:14:26 AM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.

The bridges would be grandfathered in to the interstate highway system. The Kansas Turnpike is not interstate quality, but it was grandfathered into the interstate system. These bridges have been there for a long time and they have worked very well. If semis are allowed to use them and they are each 2 lanes wide, then they should be used for the interstate. Not to mention that there is already a cloverleaf at the US 41 / I-164 interchange. The highway is in good shape to carry an interstate. I know that my proposal runs through the northern edge of a park, but it would not be the first park a major highway runs through.

Edge isn't as big of a deal as right through the middle.

Ummm...no. If ANY part of a national park is affected by a proposed highway project, it would fall under Section 4(f), and thus be disqualified unless a more feasible route cannot be produced. Plus, a new I-69 bridge connecting Evansville and Henderson would relieve the existing traffic on the US 41 bridges. And, the old bridges, unless seriously upgraded w/ adequate shoulders, cannot be grandfathered into the Interstate system. Why not just go with what has been already approved?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 05, 2014, 08:12:47 AM
It's not a national park it's a state park.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 05, 2014, 09:20:42 AM

I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.

Plus that's sort of negligibly even I-81 anymore other than simply in name.  It's like the series of glorified ramps that constitute the east end of I-90 before the sign declares it ended well after everyone assumes it already was done. 
Then tell me what those interchanges on Wellesley Island are.  Its four lanes, 65 mph speed limit, service signs at interchanges, interstates standards for four miles from the bridge to Canada.  NY does seem to drop the I-81 signs on the bridge itself though... in terms of signage, I-81 nearly has a gap.

The important difference between I-81 and I-69 is that I-81 was part of the original 1950s system.  I-69 was not.  AASHTO and the FHWA do not and will not ever grandfather in an interstate not part of the original system (this is the very definition of grandfathering in something... to include something that was made before the standard was set).

Sorry, I thought the bridge you were referring to was the one that crosses the border itself.  Serves me right for relying on Google Maps.

I was going to make the same point about retroactively "grandfathering in" something from after the system was begun, but figured there is some hitch in the government's definition of "grandfathering" that is not in line with the rest of the world's, which would not be shocking.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 05, 2014, 05:57:03 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.

The bridges would be grandfathered in to the interstate highway system. The Kansas Turnpike is not interstate quality, but it was grandfathered into the interstate system. These bridges have been there for a long time and they have worked very well. If semis are allowed to use them and they are each 2 lanes wide, then they should be used for the interstate. Not to mention that there is already a cloverleaf at the US 41 / I-164 interchange. The highway is in good shape to carry an interstate. I know that my proposal runs through the northern edge of a park, but it would not be the first park a major highway runs through.

Edge isn't as big of a deal as right through the middle.

Regardless, this still doesn't address the need for a second crossing between Henderson and Evansville. Last Friday, I was returning from Kentucky on the northbound bridge. The southbound had one lane closed on the southern end of the bridge with a "small" accident or possibly car trouble. The southbound traffic was backed up to Riverside Dr in Evansville, which is about 4 miles from the bridge. This isn't all that uncommon. There are a considerable amount of people who work on one side and live on the other. I am sure that is a pretty helpless feeling if you are stuck in a jam, and have a child to be picked up on the other side, or even worse, have an emergency to deal with.

A metro of 400K+ with a retail service area of nearly a million should have more than one river crossing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 05, 2014, 06:18:53 PM
Good point.  Didn't think of it that way!

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 07, 2014, 11:31:52 AM
Don't recall this being discussed recently, but if the I-69 crossing goes upstream from Evansville (like it appears to be), will Indiana seek an x69 for the remainder of I-164?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 07, 2014, 02:00:25 PM
Don't recall this being discussed recently, but if the I-69 crossing goes upstream from Evansville (like it appears to be), will Indiana seek an x69 for the remainder of I-164?

I think the general consensus is no, that it will be Veterans Parkway from that point. You are talking about less than 3 miles that could be designated as an interstate, seems kind of pointless.

There are rumors that INDOT is considering re-routing US 41 to use the current I-164 route. If that happens, then obviously it would be US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 07, 2014, 02:10:51 PM
I heard its going to be I-169

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on March 07, 2014, 02:20:05 PM
Don't recall this being discussed recently, but if the I-69 crossing goes upstream from Evansville (like it appears to be), will Indiana seek an x69 for the remainder of I-164?

I think the general consensus is no, that it will be Veterans Parkway from that point. You are talking about less than 3 miles that could be designated as an interstate, seems kind of pointless.

There are rumors that INDOT is considering re-routing US 41 to use the current I-164 route. If that happens, then obviously it would be US 41.

There are a lot of 3dis that are under 3 miles in length.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 07, 2014, 02:21:54 PM
There are alot barely hitting a mile

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on March 07, 2014, 03:36:28 PM
It's not a national park it's a state park.

4(f) applies to any park or historical resource, including elements of transportation infrastructure (such as historic bridges and tunnels). It is deliberately broad to cover examples like Memphis' Overton Park (a municipal park) or the French Quarter of New Orleans, essentially codifying the freeway revolts as federal law.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on March 07, 2014, 09:55:56 PM
If 41 is moved to the I-164 route (a big IF in my opinion) it's not obvious that it would rejoin the old 41 route at the 164 interchange. INDOT could route 41 across the new I-69 bridge, if they can get Kentucky to agree. That might give a little additional boost to I-69 bridge toll receipts, which would be attractive to both states. I'm figuring it will be a toll bridge, though that's not set in stone.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 07, 2014, 10:15:08 PM
If 41 is moved to the I-164 route (a big IF in my opinion) it's not obvious that it would rejoin the old 41 route at the 164 interchange. INDOT could route 41 across the new I-69 bridge, if they can get Kentucky to agree. That might give a little additional boost to I-69 bridge toll receipts, which would be attractive to both states. I'm figuring it will be a toll bridge, though that's not set in stone.

Would a potential move of 41 be to keep traffic coming from Terre Haute, Princeton, etc., on a through-route-grade road on south, or would there be some other reason?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 07, 2014, 10:47:17 PM
If 41 is moved to the I-164 route (a big IF in my opinion) it's not obvious that it would rejoin the old 41 route at the 164 interchange. INDOT could route 41 across the new I-69 bridge, if they can get Kentucky to agree. That might give a little additional boost to I-69 bridge toll receipts, which would be attractive to both states. I'm figuring it will be a toll bridge, though that's not set in stone.

Would a potential move of 41 be to keep traffic coming from Terre Haute, Princeton, etc., on a through-route-grade road on south, or would there be some other reason?

More likely due to Indiana's mileage caps, since they'd likely give old 41 to the city.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 08, 2014, 12:52:53 AM
I heard its going to be I-169

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Oh no, that will probably get Mayor Ron worked up again. Somehow in his mind, having a 369 or 569 for the Audubon will not be as significant as 169.

Funny, all these towns try to get every bit of concrete they can converted to a blue-red shield, but sitting here in Evansville, I just don't see the need to make the stub anything other than Veterans Parkway. I guess it could be designated Bypass 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 08, 2014, 03:50:51 AM
I heard its going to be I-169

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Oh no, that will probably get Mayor Ron worked up again. Somehow in his mind, having a 369 or 569 for the Audubon will not be as significant as 169.

Funny, all these towns try to get every bit of concrete they can converted to a blue-red shield, but sitting here in Evansville, I just don't see the need to make the stub anything other than Veterans Parkway. I guess it could be designated Bypass 41.

I hope they keep 41 where it is. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 08, 2014, 04:40:30 AM

If 41 is moved to the I-164 route (a big IF in my opinion) it's not obvious that it would rejoin the old 41 route at the 164 interchange. INDOT could route 41 across the new I-69 bridge, if they can get Kentucky to agree. That might give a little additional boost to I-69 bridge toll receipts, which would be attractive to both states. I'm figuring it will be a toll bridge, though that's not set in stone.

Would a potential move of 41 be to keep traffic coming from Terre Haute, Princeton, etc., on a through-route-grade road on south, or would there be some other reason?

More likely due to Indiana's mileage caps, since they'd likely give old 41 to the city.

Mileage caps?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 08, 2014, 04:41:01 AM
Yep

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 08, 2014, 04:51:45 AM
As of 2013 (http://www.in.gov/indot/2722.htm) they have 832 miles of wiggle room. Getting rid of a 16-mile piece of US 41 isn't going to matter much either way.

(PS: in that table WTF do they mean by "Old State Road" and "Old US route"? Are those internal designations for still-maintained old alignments?)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on March 10, 2014, 02:17:40 AM
As of 2013 (http://www.in.gov/indot/2722.htm) they have 832 miles of wiggle room. Getting rid of a 16-mile piece of US 41 isn't going to matter much either way.

(PS: in that table WTF do they mean by "Old State Road" and "Old US route"? Are those internal designations for still-maintained old alignments?)

That's my guess.  I'm fairly sure the "OUS 50" is the old route through Washington; I can't remember who told me that INDOT still maintains it, but the last time I remember work being done on that road, it was in the INDOT letting list.  It struck me as odd then, but not so much now that I've seen that ...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on March 10, 2014, 04:08:47 AM
It'd have to be Washington. The only other ones I can think of would be Bedford or Vincennes (but the latter is unlikely.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 10, 2014, 11:21:46 AM
That's wierd. You would think they would have routed us 150 onto that piece

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 10, 2014, 11:22:16 AM
Are their any other unsigned state roads in Indiana?

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on March 10, 2014, 10:03:12 PM
That's wierd. You would think they would have routed us 150 onto that piece

That would not be feasible because key among a number considerations, the bridge over the White river was abandoned so that piece of road doesn't connect to the west anymore.  (OK, they could have upgraded one of the county roads, but they don't really need it.)


Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2014, 10:53:42 PM
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/12/lobbyists-to-be-hired-for-i-69-bridge/
The article indicates that Western Kentucky and Indiana groups have hired Appian, Inc., an Indianapolis firm specializing in transportation lobbying, to lobby for federal funding for the project. The groups concede that tolls will comprise part of the funding, but will only cover 26% to 43% of the cost.

This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/apr/09/no-headline---ebj_chamberfromthepresident/) seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge:
(1) get I-69 to be designated a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill, (2) have the Federal Highway Administration appoint a national Interstate 69 Project Manager, (3) maintain that the I-69 Ohio River crossing is important in both regional and national terms, (4) emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges, as well as the fact that they are neither tornado nor earthquake proof, and (5) emphasize the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both of the US 41 bridges would have on the regional economy. Apparently, the thinking is that all of the above would make the I-69 Ohio River Bridge a high priority for a FHWA I-69 Project Manager.

Quote
I am writing this letter to you on the morning (significance to come) of Tuesday, Feb. 29, one day after returning from a trip to Washington, D.C., with a delegation of business leaders from Southwest Indiana and Northwest Kentucky to discuss our region's needs with federal officials. Our visit had a heavy focus on advocating for the completion of Interstate 69 within Indiana and Kentucky, as well as along the entire national corridor, and construction of a new Ohio River bridge linking Evansville to Henderson.
The visit included a luncheon meeting that was attended by influencers from many parts of the eight state I-69 corridor. Speakers included Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas; Gov. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky; Congressman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky; Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear; Indiana Department of Transportation Commissioner Michael Cline; Jennifer Shepard, executive director of the Alliance for I-69 in Texas; and Mike Schopmeyer, past chairman of the board of directors for The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana.
During visits with our elected officials to discuss the highway and bridge project, we stayed on message. Key points of our discussions included:
Designate Interstate 69 a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill. This designation will make segments of the highway throughout the corridor eligible for programmatic funding from the Federal Highway Administration and partially mitigate the need for lawmakers to ask for large earmarks to help build the road;
Have the Federal Highway Administration appoint an Interstate 69 Project Manager. This has been done in the past for other multistate highway projects and there is enough progress being made along the entire national corridor — and awareness of the importance of the project to the nation's economic competitiveness — that a Project Manager is warranted;
The construction of a new bridge between Evansville and Henderson is critically important not only to our economic region, but the entire multistate corridor;
The importance of tolling and allowing public/private partnerships to be established to help fund our nation's infrastructure needs.
The Bi-State Vietnam Gold Star Bridges, or more commonly referred to as the twin bridges by those of us who call the region home, were also discussed fairly extensively during our visit. We talked about the age of the bridges (northbound bridge was built in 1932; southbound bridge was built in 1966), quality of construction, usage (approximately 40,000 vehicles per day), the fact that the bridges are not earthquake or tornado proof, and the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both bridges would have on our regional economy.
Which brings me full circle to the significance of the morning of February 29. Most of us watched in a state of great concern as the weather forecasters told us of an approaching tornado, while warning sirens wailed in the distance. It was a few minutes before 6 a.m. The tornado was taking aim at our fellow citizens and the twin bridges. I could hardly believe that I had just returned from Washington, D.C., to discuss our infrastructure needs the evening before, and was now sitting in my family room watching a very serious storm approach. Thankfully a catastrophe was avoided. No lives were lost. Property damage was significant but not great. The twin bridges remained standing.
We need a new bridge. We will make it happen.

That letter is from two years ago.  What kind of traction has this strategy gotten?

Also, I'm curious what the federal funding level has been for projects comparable to this one.  Can anyone elaborate?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 11, 2014, 01:14:54 AM
Mayor Annoying Orange is still at it...from today's Evansville Courier and Press:

Transportation chief rejects rerouting of I-69 (again) but Owensboro mayor to continue campaign


By Chuck Stinnett
Posted March 10, 2014 at 5:16 p.m.


Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has, through his state transportation secretary, declined to pursue rerouting Interstate 69 through Daviess County, as the mayor of Owensboro has recently proposed.

But Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne said Monday that he intends to press forward with his campaign and intends to meet with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul on the matter.

Additionally, he said state Sen. Joe Bowen of Owensboro is working to arrange meetings with state transportation officials in both Kentucky and Indiana.

Further, Payne said he might propose that the city of Owensboro hire an engineering firm to prepare cost estimates to compare the cost of building a new billion-dollar bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville versus upgrading highways in Owensboro and Southern Indiana and using the existing Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

The state’s latest rejection of his proposal “just doesn’t change anything,” Payne said.

He said he is also anxious to see a state-commissioned study by Palmer Engineering of Winchester. The study was originally intended to look at the cost of upgrading state parkways into interstate spurs that would connect Owensboro to Interstate 69 at Henderson and Interstate 65 at Bowling Green, but Payne said its scope has been expanded to look at the cost of using the Natcher Bridge for I-69.

“If there is substantial savings to move (I-69) through here, I want someone to tell me why not do that,” the Owensboro mayor declared.

“This may go nowhere,” he said. “But the taxpayers of Indiana and Kentucky need to have this done.”

Payne on Feb. 26 wrote to Beshear, asking that “all work on the I-69 corridor in Kentucky be suspended” until consideration had been given to using the existing U.S. 231/Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

On Friday, Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock, at the governor’s request, advised Payne that the corridor won’t be moved.

Hancock said the I-69 corridor from Mexico to Canada, including the section at Henderson and Evansville, “was selected through intensive evaluation of alternative corridors and associated environmental effects,” a process that “culminated in Congressional action to write the corridor location into federal law.”

“This routing was decided following several decades of discussion and decision making,” Will Wingfield, a spokesman for the Indiana Department of Transportation, echoed in an email message to The Gleaner.

Both Kentucky and Indiana have worked over the past several years to route I-69 to Henderson and Evansville.

Kentucky has already awarded $34 million in contracts to upgrade portions of the Pennyrile Parkway to become I-69 from Henderson to Madisonville, with more expected.

Indiana, meanwhile, “has opened 96 miles of interstate pointed toward Evansville and (has) an additional 27 miles under construction,” Wingfield said.

“Given the investment each state is currently making in Interstate 69, it is much too late to seriously consider adjusting the corridor to go through Owensboro,” Hancock wrote to Payne.

“I believe concrete speaks louder than words on this issue,” Wingfield agreed.

Payne stunned I-69 supporters on Feb. 6 by proposing that instead of tying into the Pennyrile, I-69 should continue eastward on the Western Kentucky Parkway for some 30 miles, then travel north on the Green River Parkway, east on the Owensboro Bypass and U.S. 60 to the four-lane Natcher Bridge near Maceo, Ky. From there, his proposal would have I-69 travel north on U.S. 231 in Southern Indiana before heading back west on I-64 to the existing I-69 terminus northeast of Evansville.

In his letter Friday, Hancock declared: “Neither the existing Owensboro Bypass, the Owensboro Bypass Extension currently being completed, U.S. 60 from Owensboro to the Natcher Bridge, the Natcher Bridge itself nor the recently improved U.S. 231 in Southern Indiana are interstate-compatible facilities. Accordingly, both Kentucky and Indiana would incur huge expense in reconstructing these routes to fully access-controlled interstate standards with sufficient roadway and bridge widths to accommodate Interstate 69.”

“The letter reiterates everything we’ve been saying the last month since this controversy arose,” Kyndle President and CEO Brad Schneider of Henderson, a leading I-69 booster, said Monday.

The governor’s views on I-69 are “the same as the letter,” Schneider said. “I know they collaborated on it.”

U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield similarly has dismissed Payne’s proposal, declaring at a Feb. 19 Kyndle luncheon here that the Henderson-Evansville route is “an issue that’s already been decided and it’s over.”
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 11, 2014, 12:13:32 PM
Mayor Annoying Orange is still at it...from today's Evansville Courier and Press:

Transportation chief rejects rerouting of I-69 (again) but Owensboro mayor to continue campaign


By Chuck Stinnett
Posted March 10, 2014 at 5:16 p.m.


Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has, through his state transportation secretary, declined to pursue rerouting Interstate 69 through Daviess County, as the mayor of Owensboro has recently proposed.

But Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne said Monday that he intends to press forward with his campaign and intends to meet with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul on the matter.

Additionally, he said state Sen. Joe Bowen of Owensboro is working to arrange meetings with state transportation officials in both Kentucky and Indiana.

Further, Payne said he might propose that the city of Owensboro hire an engineering firm to prepare cost estimates to compare the cost of building a new billion-dollar bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville versus upgrading highways in Owensboro and Southern Indiana and using the existing Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

The state’s latest rejection of his proposal “just doesn’t change anything,” Payne said.

He said he is also anxious to see a state-commissioned study by Palmer Engineering of Winchester. The study was originally intended to look at the cost of upgrading state parkways into interstate spurs that would connect Owensboro to Interstate 69 at Henderson and Interstate 65 at Bowling Green, but Payne said its scope has been expanded to look at the cost of using the Natcher Bridge for I-69.

“If there is substantial savings to move (I-69) through here, I want someone to tell me why not do that,” the Owensboro mayor declared.

“This may go nowhere,” he said. “But the taxpayers of Indiana and Kentucky need to have this done.”

Payne on Feb. 26 wrote to Beshear, asking that “all work on the I-69 corridor in Kentucky be suspended” until consideration had been given to using the existing U.S. 231/Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

On Friday, Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock, at the governor’s request, advised Payne that the corridor won’t be moved.

Hancock said the I-69 corridor from Mexico to Canada, including the section at Henderson and Evansville, “was selected through intensive evaluation of alternative corridors and associated environmental effects,” a process that “culminated in Congressional action to write the corridor location into federal law.”

“This routing was decided following several decades of discussion and decision making,” Will Wingfield, a spokesman for the Indiana Department of Transportation, echoed in an email message to The Gleaner.

Both Kentucky and Indiana have worked over the past several years to route I-69 to Henderson and Evansville.

Kentucky has already awarded $34 million in contracts to upgrade portions of the Pennyrile Parkway to become I-69 from Henderson to Madisonville, with more expected.

Indiana, meanwhile, “has opened 96 miles of interstate pointed toward Evansville and (has) an additional 27 miles under construction,” Wingfield said.

“Given the investment each state is currently making in Interstate 69, it is much too late to seriously consider adjusting the corridor to go through Owensboro,” Hancock wrote to Payne.

“I believe concrete speaks louder than words on this issue,” Wingfield agreed.

Payne stunned I-69 supporters on Feb. 6 by proposing that instead of tying into the Pennyrile, I-69 should continue eastward on the Western Kentucky Parkway for some 30 miles, then travel north on the Green River Parkway, east on the Owensboro Bypass and U.S. 60 to the four-lane Natcher Bridge near Maceo, Ky. From there, his proposal would have I-69 travel north on U.S. 231 in Southern Indiana before heading back west on I-64 to the existing I-69 terminus northeast of Evansville.

In his letter Friday, Hancock declared: “Neither the existing Owensboro Bypass, the Owensboro Bypass Extension currently being completed, U.S. 60 from Owensboro to the Natcher Bridge, the Natcher Bridge itself nor the recently improved U.S. 231 in Southern Indiana are interstate-compatible facilities. Accordingly, both Kentucky and Indiana would incur huge expense in reconstructing these routes to fully access-controlled interstate standards with sufficient roadway and bridge widths to accommodate Interstate 69.”

“The letter reiterates everything we’ve been saying the last month since this controversy arose,” Kyndle President and CEO Brad Schneider of Henderson, a leading I-69 booster, said Monday.

The governor’s views on I-69 are “the same as the letter,” Schneider said. “I know they collaborated on it.”

U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield similarly has dismissed Payne’s proposal, declaring at a Feb. 19 Kyndle luncheon here that the Henderson-Evansville route is “an issue that’s already been decided and it’s over.”

My goodness, this guy is one piece of work!  He blatantly just wants the reroute to benefit Owensboro, His thoughts on where 69 should go are stupid!  The supposed cost savings by using 231 will just go to the new terrain routes and upgrading what is already there!  69 isn't allowed to go on the 231 bridge due to some road width issues as the cabinet says.  Will he just give up!  The route he proposes makes no sense at all, it will zig-zag to the point where the road isn't even useful.  Payne give it up! You have 0% chance of winning this one!  I like how his route completely screws over evansville completely.  What do you guys think?  does he have any chance at changing the route?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on March 11, 2014, 01:40:13 PM
My goodness, this guy is one piece of work!  He blatantly just wants the reroute to benefit Owensboro, His thoughts on where 69 should go are stupid!  The supposed cost savings by using 231 will just go to the new terrain routes and upgrading what is already there!  69 isn't allowed to go on the 231 bridge due to some road width issues as the cabinet says.  Will he just give up!  The route he proposes makes no sense at all, it will zig-zag to the point where the road isn't even useful.  Payne give it up! You have 0% chance of winning this one!  I like how his route completely screws over evansville completely.  What do you guys think?  does he have any chance at changing the route?

He has about as much chance as a snowball does in Hell.  :evilgrin:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 11, 2014, 01:45:11 PM
Haha I agree!

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 11, 2014, 03:34:59 PM
Can he be impeached for idiocy?  His idea makes even less sense that the most nonsensical posts in fictional highways.  It's blatantly obvious he knows nothing about interstates beyond "they're that thing with the blue shield that businesses like".
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Great Zo on March 11, 2014, 09:00:04 PM
Further, Payne said he might propose that the city of Owensboro hire an engineering firm to prepare cost estimates to compare the cost of building a new billion-dollar bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville versus upgrading highways in Owensboro and Southern Indiana and using the existing Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

Well, that's going to make him some friends.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 11, 2014, 09:23:17 PM
Even if 69 was routed through Owensboro on his route, none of the main traffic would go that way. Everyone would go to Evansville and use the existing 41 bridges and travel on their way. At least my idea of using the existing bridges is actually modest. My plan for saving money is smart. His is stupid.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on March 12, 2014, 07:05:13 PM
Further, Payne said he might propose that the city of Owensboro hire an engineering firm to prepare cost estimates to compare the cost of building a new billion-dollar bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville versus upgrading highways in Owensboro and Southern Indiana and using the existing Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

Well, that's going to make him some friends.
Speaking very selfishly, I'll be friends with any mayor who wants to waste money on engineering studies, as long as he asks my company to do them. (:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 12, 2014, 09:18:26 PM
Can he be impeached for idiocy?  His idea makes even less sense that the most nonsensical posts in fictional highways.  It's blatantly obvious he knows nothing about interstates beyond "they're that thing with the blue shield that businesses like".

I don't really care what Ron Payne knows about interstates because it doesn't matter.  What is interesting, though, is his motivation.  As I see it, the potential answers are:

a) he is trying to get the word "Owensboro" in the papers a lot in an issue framed around growth and optimism, or
b) the same, with the words "Ron Payne" also attached (pretty much a given regardless), or
c) he's trying to appeal to the fiscal hawks that drool at this sort of "conspiracy to waste tax money" talk, regardless of truth, building name recognition and making him attractive for higher office among said folks, or
d) he has an alternative project up his sleeve that he's really aiming for, hoping to achieve it as a "compromise" when it was his goal all along, or
e) he actually thinks this plan is the right one and our bureaucracy is too intractable to acknowledge when it's wrong, and he's not planning on letting them off the hook, or
f) he personally stands to materially benefit from a rerouting.

I'm sure there are lots of "g) he's mentally ill"-type answers that I'm sure folks will demonstrate their finest creativity with.

Possibility C sounds most reasonable to me, but I don't know the guy's politics, and I don't see a campaign web site for him where he'd get into it, but it'd appeal to people who like that sort of bluster.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 12, 2014, 11:26:27 PM
Still, claiming that having I-69 essentially have a giant sideways U in the middle of its routing just to use an exiting bridge will save money is a big lie.  Even if his claims about saving Kentucky money were true (which they aren't because of these things called "interstate standards"), it definitely would cost Indiana more.  As such I'd actually prefer he be an idiot rather than the more likely chance of having a deeper agenda.  At least idiots don't know any better.  Intentionally lying is a VERY good way to get on my bad side very fast with little chance of forgiveness.

Speaking very selfishly, I'll be friends with any mayor who wants to waste money on engineering studies, as long as he asks my company to do them. (:
Yes, I imagine such friendship comes with lots of "benefits".
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on March 14, 2014, 05:30:21 AM
The big question about getting the bridge built is how to pay for it. Kentucky and Indiana could come up with the money easily if they just emulate Colorado (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/03/11/its-no-toke-colorado-pulls-in-millions-in-marijuana-tax-revenue/).  :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 14, 2014, 09:51:43 AM
One of my guesses on his reasoning, (besides the Mayor is a complete whackadoodle) would be he is positioning himself to get this as a consolation prize.



I-67 project from Dubois County to Owensboro, Ky. to be dubbed 'Midstate Corridor'
By Jonathan Streetman/The Jasper Herald


Posted March 12, 2014 at 1 p.m., updated March 12, 2014 at 1 p.m.
HUNTINGBURG, Ind. — The proposed Interstate 67 project — which would link Dubois County directly to Owensboro — will now be known by a new name. Hank Menke, president of the I-67 Development Corp., announced the switch Wednesday morning.

Menke, president and CEO of OFS Brands in Huntingburg and a member of the government-appointed state Blue Ribbon Commission, said the project is now being called the "Midstate Corridor."

He made the announcement during a presentation at the Huntingburg Chamber of Commerce Business Education Series event at the Old National Bank building. About 20 chamber members were present.

“The end game is still to have an interstate,” Menke said. “And anything done in Dubois County should be done in interstate grade.”

Interstate grade would allow vehicles to travel up to 70 mph with minimal interchanges to keep traffic flowing.

The name change is not a complete abandonment of the interstate idea, Menke said, but provides a more realistic goal for the near future.

“Gov. (Mike) Pence wanted the Blue Ribbon Commission to think big, so that’s what we did,” Menke said. “But with so many projects, adding on an interstate is like trying to swallow an elephant. We want to do this correctly and complete it in smaller parts.”

Instead of asking for approval of an entire interstate project stretching from Grand Rapids, Mich., to Nashville, Tenn., Menke is hoping for a smaller section connecting U.S. 231 to I-69 in Washington. The location of the Dubois County connection along U.S. 231 would be determined by the Indiana Department of Transportation at a later date.

The original plan was to connect U.S. 231 to I-69 in Washington by building a 38-mile corridor beginning where U.S. 231 intersects I-64 in Spencer County. It remains undecided if the proposed route would run east or west around Jasper and Huntingburg.

Menke believes the path would benefit Dubois County in a big way. The new section of roadway could also create a route to build from in the future, he said.

Menke said in 2011 that his company’s trucks often skirt U.S. 231 by heading east on I-64 and connecting to I-65 to get to Indianapolis. He said the extra mileage costs his company about $250,000 annually.

“Studies show that communities within 10 miles of an interstate are more likely to bring in jobs than those that are not,” Menke said.

Menke said Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann, a Ferdinand native, has been a champion for the cause and Menke is optimistic about the corridor’s chances when the Blue Ribbon Commission presents its final report to Pence’s office in June. The commission has met three times — twice in Indianapolis and once in Fort Wayne — and examined several proposed projects throughout the state and attempted to tier their importance. Another Blue Ribbon meeting is set for 1 p.m. Friday, April 25, at OFS Huntingburg headquarters, 1204 E. Sixth Street. The meeting is an open forum.

Last year, the plan was for the projects in Tier 1 to be recommended for completion within five years. Those in Tier 2 were targeted for completion in six to eight years and Tier 3 projects would be finished in 15 to 20 years.

“If we get Tier 2, I’ll be happy,” Menke said today. “I just want to avoid Tier 3 or getting cut. ... I can’t think of a more vital thing for this region. It would promote job growth and prevent brain drain. It would be all-around beneficial.”

The I-67 project arose 2012. The idea, in part is to alleviate traffic on I-65, which spans from Bowling Green, Ky., to Indianapolis by way of Louisville. The construction of I-67 would also decrease travel time for Dubois County residents traveling to Indianapolis by about 45 minutes, Menke said. A study completed by Massachusetts-based Cambridge Systematics also determined an interstate would decrease accidents along the two-lane U.S. 231 by up to 2 percent, which equates to as many as 500 fewer accidents and 300 fewer significant injuries annually.

© 2014 Evansville Courier & Press. All rights reserved.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 14, 2014, 10:09:09 AM
This is where the good mayor gets exposed for talking out of both sides of his mouth. He wants I-69 to come 40 miles to the east and then back 40 something miles, all in the name of saving taxpayer money. However, he also is pushing for this interstate. If the mayor says it is reasonable to add an extra 80 miles or so to I-69, surely he would also insist it is reasonable and expected for his community to drive 20 miles to Henderson to take an interstate to Indianapolis and north.

I also agree with quesitoning why this proposed interstate is going to Washington instead of straight up 231 to 69. That appears to add at least 35-40 miles to the route. If the purpose of this route is to bring development and help the citizens of Dubois and Owensboro, what about the good folks of Martin County and Loogootee? Washington already has an interstate going to Evansville and Indianapolis. I doubt too many people there care about getting to Owensboro quicker.  Looking at the current map, I can't imagine too many people from Bowling Green/Nashville taking this route to Indy. In fact, when looking at it, it appears that the 24-Pennyrile-69 route would not be much farther than this corridor as a Louisville/65 alternative. Certainly not enough additional miles to justify the Ron Payne interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 14, 2014, 10:16:53 AM
I also agree with quesitoning why this proposed interstate is going to Washington instead of straight up 231 to 69. That appears to add at least 35-40 miles to the route.
Using current roads from Jasper to Washington and then I-69 is 14 miles longer than sticking to US 231. A straighter route bypassing Jasper to the west would cut that to below 10 miles. On the other hand, it would cut necessary construction by at least 15-20 miles.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 14, 2014, 10:18:11 AM
i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere! 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on March 14, 2014, 10:27:58 AM
I also agree with quesitoning why this proposed interstate is going to Washington instead of straight up 231 to 69. That appears to add at least 35-40 miles to the route.

Since I-69 is already built, going to Washington would mean fewer miles would need to be constructed than if going up 231.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 14, 2014, 11:28:07 AM

i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere!

We live in an age of entitlement.  Everyone's feelings are important, and every town apparently deserves the growth benefits unfairly accorded to those few with the blue and red trademark that denotes "someplace important."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 14, 2014, 11:58:31 AM
i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere!
as long as there are no traffic lights; I'm okay with at-grades when needed.

and a speed limit of 70mph would be much nicer.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 14, 2014, 11:59:40 AM
It's really annoying hearing the whole interstate = jobs thing from politicians.

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 14, 2014, 12:09:50 PM
i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere!

Agreed. US 41 is deemed adequate serving Evansville, Vincennes, Terre Haute to NW Indiana/Chicago. US 30 works for Ft. Wayne, Wabash and NW Indiana/Chicago, US 24 out of Fort Wayne, US 31 South Bend/Indy...surely the same would be sufficient in serving towns the size of Owensboro and Jasper. Based on population alone, I would have to assume that traffic counts are significantly higher on US 41, 24, 30 and 31 than would ever be counted along US 231 in Southern Indiana.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on March 14, 2014, 12:41:50 PM
i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere!

Agreed. US 41 is deemed adequate serving Evansville, Vincennes, Terre Haute to NW Indiana/Chicago. US 30 works for Ft. Wayne, Wabash and NW Indiana/Chicago, US 24 out of Fort Wayne, US 31 South Bend/Indy...surely the same would be sufficient in serving towns the size of Owensboro and Jasper. Based on population alone, I would have to assume that traffic counts are significantly higher on US 41, 24, 30 and 31 than would ever be counted along US 231 in Southern Indiana.

"But..but..but..(sputter)..the magic red, white, and blue Interstate shield always brings more jobs and moar money!  It's magic, I tell you!  It will magically turn our town into NYC from this shithole just by being posted!"
- Mayor of the Village of Buttfuck, State of Pissant
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 14, 2014, 03:42:56 PM
I also agree with quesitoning why this proposed interstate is going to Washington instead of straight up 231 to 69. That appears to add at least 35-40 miles to the route.

Since I-69 is already built, going to Washington would mean fewer miles would need to be constructed than if going up 231.
And having I-67 take over I-369 to meet I-69 in Henderson would be cheaper still.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 14, 2014, 10:15:26 PM
i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere!

Agreed. US 41 is deemed adequate serving Evansville, Vincennes, Terre Haute to NW Indiana/Chicago. US 30 works for Ft. Wayne, Wabash and NW Indiana/Chicago, US 24 out of Fort Wayne, US 31 South Bend/Indy...surely the same would be sufficient in serving towns the size of Owensboro and Jasper. Based on population alone, I would have to assume that traffic counts are significantly higher on US 41, 24, 30 and 31 than would ever be counted along US 231 in Southern Indiana.

"But..but..but..(sputter)..the magic red, white, and blue Interstate shield always brings more jobs and moar money!  It's magic, I tell you!  It will magically turn our town into NYC from this shithole just by being posted!"
- Mayor of the Village of Buttfuck, State of Pissant

In fairness, a) it's not just politicians but whole communities creating this hype, and b) people in some towns that do get Interstates talk about them like it was crucial to their economic future (paid attention to the Evansville media lately?).  Why should folks in non-Interstate towns believe differently?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on March 14, 2014, 11:18:15 PM
Not that this really has anything to do with the bridge and responding to the renaming of "I-67" effort to Midstate corridor;

As someone who is frequently on the US231 between Jasper and Crane, I am pleased to see the good folks of Jasper are dropping the non-sense of I-67.  I don't think they could ever be taken seriously.  I also would like to echo the sentiment that US231 does not need to be an interstate, but it certainly needs to be improved.  I also think a new alignment (231 or whatever) to Washington still makes the effort weaker because it serves no purpose beyond the Jasper interest.  As pointed out, when (not if) the I-69 bridge (back on topic!) gets built, you will not have to start much south of Owensboro to choose Evansville as a via point instead of Jasper.  Only the most direct route possible (current 231 corridor) would provide any economic advantage.

Long way of saying, fair start re-naming the effort, but drop the insane zig-zag route to nowhere just to get a bypass built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 14, 2014, 11:56:53 PM
I'd say something about Owensboro wanting I-69E, but then I'd just be giving the mayor (bad) ideas.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 15, 2014, 08:57:05 AM
Hopefully I-67 doesn't happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on March 15, 2014, 06:25:01 PM
Game over for Ron Payne... FHWA says that the current route on the Parkways is designated in Federal law.

Quote
U.S. Representative Ed Whitfield (KY-01), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, sent a letter to the Federal Highway Administration, Feb. 26, 2014 regarding recent proposals to alter the route of Interstate-69.
In the letter Whitfield stated: “It has recently come to my attention that some people are interested in shifting the route to the east, following United State Highway 231 from Washington, Indiana to Owensboro, Kentucky.”

Whitfield pointed out that the route currently designated as Interstate-69 is of vital importance to Western, KY, and that he was instrumental in seeing this route designated in Federal law as part of the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-244).

Today, Whitfield received an official response from FHWA Deputy Administrator Gregory Nadeau.

In his response, Deputy Administrator Nadeau confirmed that a change in Federal law would be necessary in order to re-route Interstate-69 through Owensboro.

He also stated that the impacts of altering the route at this point would be significant and cost prohibitive, as millions of dollars have already been spent based on current statute and already completed work would essentially have to be re-started in order to accommodate the new route.

“I am pleased that FHWA agrees with me that not only would it require a change in federal law to move the route, but it would also be cost prohibitive. It is also my understanding that the William Natcher Bridge in Owensboro is only a two lane bridge and does not meet Interstate bridge standards, which require a four lane bridge and an emergency safety lane. This essentially negates claims that have been made that the Natcher Bridge would prevent a new bridge from having to be built,” said Whitfield.  “I understand importance of Interstate 69 to Kentucky and to my constituents in Henderson and the surrounding communities. It is essential that we remain united and committed to completing the designated route as soon as possible,” he concluded.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on March 15, 2014, 06:40:49 PM
Mr. Nadeau is mistaken about the Natcher bridge being only two lanes. It has four lanes, but it clearly does not have the required "emergency safety lane." See here: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.902741,-87.035446,3a,75y,157.15h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1wq9ZzxNUu5hDPtpat6EcQ!2e0?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.902741,-87.035446,3a,75y,157.15h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1wq9ZzxNUu5hDPtpat6EcQ!2e0?hl=en)

If you think Mayor Payne is done though, you're wrong. I've seen the type before. He'll just keep squawking, even when no one is listening. Fewer and fewer are listening.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 16, 2014, 10:03:35 AM
It's basically the same quality as the US 41 twin bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on March 16, 2014, 06:36:51 PM
Which is why those bridges would not meet interstate standards either.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 17, 2014, 08:40:34 AM
Except they claim that the US 231 bridge is interstate quality.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 17, 2014, 09:06:43 AM
Except they claim that the US 231 bridge is interstate quality.
Looks like it is.
US 231 Natcher Bridge:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/William_H._Natcher_Bridge_Drivethru_P6230270.JPG)
I-295 Dames Point Bridge:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg/496px-Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 17, 2014, 11:30:04 AM
Except they claim that the US 231 bridge is interstate quality.
Looks like it is.
US 231 Natcher Bridge:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/William_H._Natcher_Bridge_Drivethru_P6230270.JPG)
I-295 Dames Point Bridge:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg/496px-Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg)

Can you show a picture of the US 41 twin bridges and the US 231 bridge on the same post?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 17, 2014, 11:33:42 AM
No, but you can: http://bridgehunter.com/ky/henderson/evansville/
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 17, 2014, 11:44:37 AM
(http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/kentucky/images/sbus41ohiorvr1.jpg)

(http://www.roadfood.com/insider/photos/10926.jpg)

There's not much of a difference between these 2 bridges, besides the fact that one is iron and the other is a suspension. (The one on the top is the US 41 twin bridges. The one on the bottom is US 231.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 17, 2014, 11:46:59 AM
The shoulder's definitely wider on US 231. How about the lanes themselves? How wide is each lane? It looks like the shoulder plus right lane on US 231 is wide enough for a car to pass a stopped car, but maybe not on US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 17, 2014, 11:50:31 AM
Ya maybe, but I don't think it's worth spending a billion dollars to build a new bridge that is a foot or 2 wider.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2014, 11:52:21 AM
Wouldn't an interstate bridge need 2 ten foot wide shoulders on either side of the 2 lanes? So at least 44 feet wide including everything (for just one bridge)?

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 17, 2014, 12:25:22 PM
Wouldn't an interstate bridge need 2 ten foot wide shoulders on either side of the 2 lanes?
The Dames Point Bridge doesn't have either, and the FHWA made it part of I-295 in 2010 (or 2011?).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 17, 2014, 02:26:15 PM
The other US 41 bridge is about 50 years older. Go look for a photo of it and then compare it to the newer span.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 18, 2014, 12:18:18 AM
The other US 41 bridge is about 50 years older. Go look for a photo of it and then compare it to the newer span.

Yep, and the old (northbound) is not wide enough to meet interstate standards. He keeps advocating using the US 41 spans for I-69. In of itself, I really don't have a problem with it, although if that is the case, I would suggest elevating it through the so called Henderson strip rather than ramming it through Audubon Park. But regardless, it still doesn't address the need that Evansville-Henderson needs a second crossing.

You add the 69 traffic to these spans, and the frequent back ups and delays will only get worse. Not to mention, the northbound span is over 80 years old.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 18, 2014, 07:36:48 AM

The other US 41 bridge is about 50 years older. Go look for a photo of it and then compare it to the newer span.

Yep, and the old (northbound) is not wide enough to meet interstate standards. He keeps advocating using the US 41 spans for I-69. In of itself, I really don't have a problem with it, although if that is the case, I would suggest elevating it through the so called Henderson strip rather than ramming it through Audubon Park. But regardless, it still doesn't address the need that Evansville-Henderson needs a second crossing.

You add the 69 traffic to these spans, and the frequent back ups and delays will only get worse. Not to mention, the northbound span is over 80 years old.

The cost of an elevated highway in Henderson will eat significantly into the bridge savings, and you still end up with an 80-year-old bridge. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 16, 2014, 08:37:48 PM
Some interesting developments in Henderson today and a little speculation.

There was a truck wreck on the US 41 strip that resulted in a truck spilling a load of tree sap. The road was closed all day and traffic was being detoured via a side street. Traffic was snarled for hours. This is the busiest road in western Kentucky and if the completion of I-69 induces more traffic, look out.

I knew all this because I was in training with my counterpart from the western part of the state. He said the northbound bridge, the oldest one, will need to be replaced in about 20 years. It's possible that after the I-69 bridge is built and it takes through traffic off US 41, the bridge will not be replaced and traffic in both directions will use the other bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on April 17, 2014, 12:17:10 AM
http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/tanker-spill-creates-massive-traffic-jam-in-hender/49483/iN6oQdZ-cUy-FyKK2_-lpg

Coverage of the backup. This one is pretty severe, but backups and delays of a couple of hours are all too common.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: billtm on May 18, 2014, 12:53:12 AM
Are their any other unsigned state roads in Indiana?

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Yes, Sagamore Pkwy. West in West Lafayette from the new US 231/52 bypass to the Wabash R. bridge is still maintained by INDOT even though it is unsigned. About half of it has already been repaved and the other half is expected to be repaved soon.

On a separate note, why is the bridge planned to be built after the hook of the J? Shouldn't I-69 just go directly south from Covert Ave.? Also, does anyone else think I-69's routing along the parkways of Kentucky is terribly inefficient and jagged? (Especially the segment from Henderson to Calvert City.) I think they should do what they did with I-35 in Kansas between Emporia and KC, and build a new stretch of freeway for that segment. (I think that is what they did in Kansas, but I'm not sure. Tell me if I'm wrong.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on May 18, 2014, 02:46:58 AM
Angel Mounds State Historic Site is in the way if the highway were to go straight south from Covert Avenue. It also looks like there would be a few homes in the way. Meanwhile, south along Green River Road there looks to be about nothing, so it's by far the path of least resistance. As for Henderson to Calvert City route, it was the only way that Kentucky could have the interstate without having to do all those environmental studies that would take years, not to mention that whole building a new-terrain route thing that would cut through some people's properties. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 18, 2014, 04:14:39 PM
Also, does anyone else think I-69's routing along the parkways of Kentucky is terribly inefficient and jagged?

All of I-69 is jagged and inefficient.
A new terrain alignment in KY would have made I-69 an even bigger waste than it already is.
The proposed Ohio River crossing is way more expensive and less useful than blasting through the parking lots and box stores north of Henderson.
But we've covered these issues ad-nausea.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on May 18, 2014, 11:19:10 PM
Angel Mounds State Historic Site is in the way if the highway were to go straight south from Covert Avenue. It also looks like there would be a few homes in the way. Meanwhile, south along Green River Road there looks to be about nothing, so it's by far the path of least resistance. As for Henderson to Calvert City route, it was the only way that Kentucky could have the interstate without having to do all those environmental studies that would take years, not to mention that whole building a new-terrain route thing that would cut through some people's properties.

Angel Mounds is a small part, but primarily they have to keep the bridge far enough west to be past the mouth of the Green River on the KY side.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 03, 2014, 11:21:43 PM
Game over for Ron Payne... FHWA says that the current route on the Parkways is designated in Federal law.

Nevertheless, he still won't let it go. This article (behind $1.00 paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_963d615b-e6da-5774-a4f3-0a25fa2af761.html?success=2) reports that, on Monday, he continued to press the issue with KYTC's chief district engineer for District 2:

Quote
Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to bring Interstate 69 through Owensboro instead of the route selected for it through Evansville and Henderson, Mayor Ron Payne on Monday was still arguing his case, this time to Kevin McClearn, chief district engineer for District 2 of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet....
For more than four months, Payne has argued long and hard that routing I-69 through Owensboro and using the William Natcher Bridge would be far less expensive than building a $1.4 billion bridge many years from now across the Ohio River in Evansville-Henderson.
"Why is I-69 going where it is going?" Payne asked McClearn. "We could save a whole lot of money."
Payne insisted to McClearn that, despite all the cost figures contained in the Palmer report for upgrading parkways, four-lane highways and interchanges around Owensboro, all of it together won't cost as much as building a single interstate bridge over the Ohio River.
McClearn answered by saying the route of I-69 has been set by Congress and that work on it in Kentucky is very far along.
"We've followed the law," he said. "We've spent millions, and I-69 is going well. I know Owensboro wants to be on an interstate, and I hope it works out."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 11:26:54 PM
Arguing your case before a chief district engineer on a project this big is about the biggest exercise in futility this side of trying to convince a vegan to eat a big ol' sirloin steak.

These projects are planned by, at the lowest level, the KYTC higher-ups in Frankfort or the state legislature, or in this case, Congress and the FHWA. A CDE has absolutely no influence over a decision like this. The mayor may be trying to win over an advocate for his cause, but what he's most likely doing is causing the CDE to say the same thing just about everybody else has said: "This guy's certifiable and I wish he'd just go away and leave us all alone."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 04, 2014, 06:53:13 AM
Arguing your case before a chief district engineer on a project this big is about the biggest exercise in futility this side of trying to convince a vegan to eat a big ol' sirloin steak.

These projects are planned by, at the lowest level, the KYTC higher-ups in Frankfort or the state legislature, or in this case, Congress and the FHWA. A CDE has absolutely no influence over a decision like this. The mayor may be trying to win over an advocate for his cause, but what he's most likely doing is causing the CDE to say the same thing just about everybody else has said: "This guy's certifiable and I wish he'd just go away and leave us all alone."

A-freaking-men.

At least he has the paper in his corner. They have an editorial today that is nothing but pure ass-kissery. It's priceless. Basically it's tone is this: "Surely all the rest of us will come around and see what a genius we have in our Honorable Mayor!!!"

 /sarcasm
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 04, 2014, 06:55:05 AM
Can you post this editorial?

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 04, 2014, 07:41:43 AM
It isn't posted to the M-I's website yet. I'll see if I can get a scan of it when I get to work this evening.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 04, 2014, 09:59:02 PM
Here goes ... in PDF form:

https://sites.google.com/site/jdtvbfiles/files/editorial.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

I cut off the headline: "Palmer report validates local concerns" ... riiiiiight.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 04, 2014, 10:45:27 PM
Here goes ... in PDF form:

https://sites.google.com/site/jdtvbfiles/files/editorial.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

I cut off the headline: "Palmer report validates local concerns" ... riiiiiight.

I-69 was always going to go through Evansville, no other route was ever in the plans ever you can say there were alternatives, but they all went to Evansville, the whole purpose of this highway ever existing in Indiana was to connect Indy with Eville, for the idiot leaders in Owensboro to think that Indiana would have ever even considered using 231, they must be smoking something!  And now I hear they want I-67, which isn't even useful, it's pure selfishness that they want this highway!  I-67 is of least importance to Indiana, there are many projects that were supposed to be built around the state that were defunded and indefinitely shelved because money for them was moved to 69.  There are many, many projects around the state that make more since now than another interstate that parallels an already adequate interstate already in existence.  A 4 lane divided highway is good enough Owensboro, why are they crying so much? They already get a spur of 69! 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 04, 2014, 11:14:48 PM
Here goes ... in PDF form:

https://sites.google.com/site/jdtvbfiles/files/editorial.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

I cut off the headline: "Palmer report validates local concerns" ... riiiiiight.

I-69 was always going to go through Evansville, no other route was ever in the plans ever you can say there were alternatives, but they all went to Evansville, the whole purpose of this highway ever existing in Indiana was to connect Indy with Eville, for the idiot leaders in Owensboro to think that Indiana would have ever even considered using 231, they must be smoking something!  And now I hear they want I-67, which isn't even useful, it's pure selfishness that they want this highway!  I-67 is of least importance to Indiana, there are many projects that were supposed to be built around the state that were defunded and indefinitely shelved because money for them was moved to 69.  There are many, many projects around the state that make more since now than another interstate that parallels an already adequate interstate already in existence.  A 4 lane divided highway is good enough Owensboro, why are they crying so much? They already get a spur of 69!

I totally agree.  It's just ridiculous!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 04, 2014, 11:24:39 PM
Just leave Henderson to be the Breezewood of I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on June 05, 2014, 09:17:40 PM
Maybe the mayor wants to set up a "compromise" where he will accept the I-69 spur and take credit for a plan that already existed long before he became mayor?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 05, 2014, 11:10:25 PM
Maybe the mayor wants to set up a "compromise" where he will accept the I-69 spur and take credit for a plan that already existed long before he became mayor?

From what I understand (and keeping in mind that I am about 5 hours from Owensboro), the mayor isn't bright enough to come up with a plot like that.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 05, 2014, 11:38:22 PM

Maybe the mayor wants to set up a "compromise" where he will accept the I-69 spur and take credit for a plan that already existed long before he became mayor?

From what I understand (and keeping in mind that I am about 5 hours from Owensboro), the mayor isn't bright enough to come up with a plot like that.

Actually, this is one of the least worthwhile of various motives speculated here for a potential "demand I-69 to garner a compromise" scheme underway, and still plausible.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 09, 2014, 12:23:09 AM
From what I understand (and keeping in mind that I am about 5 hours from Owensboro), the mayor isn't bright enough to come up with a plot like that.

^^^ This is the truth!!! ^^^
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on June 09, 2014, 02:36:51 AM
What was the cost for the Natcher bridge when it was built? The traffic counts on it appear to be fairly small. I don't recall Ron Payne or the M-I showing any fiscal concern when this bridge was built.

Both US 41 and the I-69 bridges will have considerably higher traffic counts than the Natcher can ever hope to attain.

It's bad enough the mayor is brain-dead, but how can you take a newspaper seriously when they obviously have no idea that 69 is ALREADY COMPLETED to Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 10, 2014, 12:41:19 AM
What was the cost for the Natcher bridge when it was built? The traffic counts on it appear to be fairly small. I don't recall Ron Payne or the M-I showing any fiscal concern when this bridge was built.

Both US 41 and the I-69 bridges will have considerably higher traffic counts than the Natcher can ever hope to attain.

It's bad enough the mayor is brain-dead, but how can you take a newspaper seriously when they obviously have no idea that 69 is ALREADY COMPLETED to Evansville.

The Natcher's Wikipedia entry shows the cost was $70 million, but I don't think that includes the relocation/four-laning of Highway 60 (now 60 and 231) from just northeast of Owensboro to the foot of the bridge.  Of course, given what inflation has done in the last 12 years, that could be the whole thing.

No one here that I know of takes the Messenger-Inquirer seriously.  Editorials like this are a good reason why.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 11, 2014, 08:13:56 AM
Thanks for a very interesting clip. It starts out as a roast of Mayor Payne, but it quickly moves on to a serious discussion of the bridges. The Chamber sees the new bridges connecting Evansville and Henderson as inevitable, and I agree. The question is when they will be built. Judging from this clip and other news I've seen upthread, there is a lot of sentiment that it should be done by 2020. That very optimistic goal may not be attainable, but the number of influential forces that are lining up will put a lot of political pressure on getting it done.
That's a lot of work to be done in six years, and I can only imagine the amount of environmental work that will need to be done on a major river crossing like this.
The Brent Spence bridge replacement in Cincinnati is a greater need, and Kentucky will be committing to completing a new 50-mile four-lane Mountain Parkway/KY 114 route between Campton and Prestonsburg by 2020, so I really don't see a 2020 completion date for the I-69 bridges as a reasonable possibility.
Further, Payne said he might propose that the city of Owensboro hire an engineering firm to prepare cost estimates to compare the cost of building a new billion-dollar bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville versus upgrading highways in Owensboro and Southern Indiana and using the existing Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County
Well, that's going to make him some friends.

This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020, and Winnecke says a new study supports a reduced cost estimate of $800 million to build the bridge:

Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke says the I-69 bridge could be a lot cheaper than first projected.
Mayor Winnecke says a new study shows the bridge could cost about $800 million.
That's $600 million less than first thought.
Winnecke says this new estimate is partly based on the savings seen in St. Louis with the I-70 bridge.
"The 2008 estimate of $1.4 billion we believe is high," said Mayor Winnecke. "Now with what we've witnessed in St. Louis we really believe it's high, and so we have folks working to narrow to a more refined scope."
Mayor Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin hope to have the bridge built by the year 2020. Both expect it to be a toll bridge. However, a price to cross the bridge hasn't been revealed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on June 11, 2014, 08:51:49 PM
^ They do remember that only have of the I-70 Mississippi bridge was built, even after scaling it back once, right?  IIRC, the bids for the main span of that bridge were still over the estimate.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 12, 2014, 12:26:25 AM
^ They do remember that only have of the I-70 Mississippi bridge was built, even after scaling it back once, right?  IIRC, the bids for the main span of that bridge were still over the estimate.

A bridge like "The Stan" would be sufficient to carry traffic across the Ohio there for at least the foreseeable future, IMHO.  Keep in mind, most local traffic would probably still use the Twin Bridges.  I could be wrong, but if it they can find a way to get it for less, I think they ought to do it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 09, 2014, 10:36:15 PM
Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx
In an email, he cautions that, as time has passed, it is now basically an artifact of history:
Quote
Please be advised that a final environmental assessment was never approved by the Federal Highway Administration due to the inability of the Henderson-Evansville MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan being able to demonstrate fiscal constraint with this project included.  Given the inability to pay for the alternatives under consideration at that point in time and due to the passage of time, all work prepared really just becomes background or reference information for a new process that would be required should there become a means to fund this undertaking.
This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020, and Winnecke says a new study supports a reduced cost estimate of $800 million to build the bridge

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jul/09/state-transportation-panel-ranks-i-69-bridge-as/) reports that the Indiana Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure lists the I-69 bridge as a key state project and that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke has asked Governor Mike Pence to provide funding for an environmental impact study for the bridge:

Quote
Plans for an Interstate 69 bridge linking Indiana and Kentucky received a boost of recognition from the state on Wednesday.
The project was scored among the highest for future transportation projects by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure, whose membership includes Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke.
Gov. Mike Pence accepted the recommendations from the report, but though it lists the I-69 bridge as a key state project, no funding is provided for the project by its inclusion in the report.
Winnecke, who was in Indianapolis for the report’s release, said he’s working to dispel a cost estimate of $1.4 billion for the project. He said the actual cost for the bridge over the Ohio River likely will range between $700 million and $800 million.
Winnecke said he’s asked Pence to provide funding for an environmental impact study for the bridge, which is a required step to determine the route.

Winnecke said he was pleasantly surprised to see how the bridge rated in the report by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure and how other members of the commission saw its importance. The bridge is included as one of four “Tier 1” projects, which rated as the most significant to the state.
“One of the beauties of the commission is that people really took time to research and read data that were presented in the project,” Winnecke said. “In our minds in Southwest Indiana, (the bridge) is a completion of I-69.” ....
Building the I-69 bridge will be a joint venture between Kentucky and Indiana.
Kentucky officials have already done work to study a potential location for the bridge and hope is for construction to begin by 2020.
In October, Winnecke and Henderson (Kentucky) Mayor Steve Austin launched BridgeLink, an organization focused on building the bridge over the Ohio River.

edit

I just noticed that Captain Jack posted a link to this article in the Indiana thread before I finished this post:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4855.msg311313#msg311313

I'll go ahead and keep this post unless the mods want to delete it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 10, 2014, 08:18:34 AM
Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx
In an email, he cautions that, as time has passed, it is now basically an artifact of history:
Quote
Please be advised that a final environmental assessment was never approved by the Federal Highway Administration due to the inability of the Henderson-Evansville MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan being able to demonstrate fiscal constraint with this project included.  Given the inability to pay for the alternatives under consideration at that point in time and due to the passage of time, all work prepared really just becomes background or reference information for a new process that would be required should there become a means to fund this undertaking.
This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020, and Winnecke says a new study supports a reduced cost estimate of $800 million to build the bridge

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jul/09/state-transportation-panel-ranks-i-69-bridge-as/) reports that the Indiana Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure lists the I-69 bridge as a key state project and that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke has asked Governor Mike Pence to provide funding for an environmental impact study for the bridge:

Quote
Plans for an Interstate 69 bridge linking Indiana and Kentucky received a boost of recognition from the state on Wednesday.
The project was scored among the highest for future transportation projects by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure, whose membership includes Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke.
Gov. Mike Pence accepted the recommendations from the report, but though it lists the I-69 bridge as a key state project, no funding is provided for the project by its inclusion in the report.
Winnecke, who was in Indianapolis for the report’s release, said he’s working to dispel a cost estimate of $1.4 billion for the project. He said the actual cost for the bridge over the Ohio River likely will range between $700 million and $800 million.
Winnecke said he’s asked Pence to provide funding for an environmental impact study for the bridge, which is a required step to determine the route.

Winnecke said he was pleasantly surprised to see how the bridge rated in the report by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure and how other members of the commission saw its importance. The bridge is included as one of four “Tier 1” projects, which rated as the most significant to the state.
“One of the beauties of the commission is that people really took time to research and read data that were presented in the project,” Winnecke said. “In our minds in Southwest Indiana, (the bridge) is a completion of I-69.” ....
Building the I-69 bridge will be a joint venture between Kentucky and Indiana.
Kentucky officials have already done work to study a potential location for the bridge and hope is for construction to begin by 2020.
In October, Winnecke and Henderson (Kentucky) Mayor Steve Austin launched BridgeLink, an organization focused on building the bridge over the Ohio River.

edit

I just noticed that Captain Jack posted a link to this article in the Indiana thread before I finished this post:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4855.msg311313#msg311313

I'll go ahead and keep this post unless the mods want to delete it.

There's a bunch of different projects listed in the report (http://www.in.gov/gov/files/Blue_Ribbon_Panel_Report_July_9_2014.pdf), so I made a post in the "Indiana Notes" thread talking about it.  The $1.4 billion cost estimate for the bridge is in the report.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 16, 2014, 09:44:51 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jul/09/state-transportation-panel-ranks-i-69-bridge-as/)
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke. ....
said he’s working to dispel a cost estimate of $1.4 billion for the project. He said the actual cost for the bridge over the Ohio River likely will range between $700 million and $800 million ...

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/i69-advocates-propose-cheaper-bridge-approaches-plan-would-cut-costs-nearly-in-half_64456086) provides some details on how the reduced cost for the bridge has been calculated; basically, shorten the new terrain approaches and reduce the width of the bridge:

Quote
For years, the greatest obstacle in building a bridge across the Ohio River here for Interstate 69 has been summed up by a cost estimate that was developed a decade ago: $1.4 billion.
Now, a Henderson-Evansville I-69 advocacy group is presenting a modified vision for the project that it says could be built for approximately $800 million — roughly half the cost of the earlier proposal ....
The cost savings would come largely from modifying two aspects of the original proposal:
Constructing a four-lane, rather than a six-lane bridge, with narrower shoulders. It would be 83 feet wide instead of the original 130-foot-wide proposal.
Shaving three miles off a new I-69 roadway, or approaches, that would tie the bridge in with the existing Pennyrile Parkway at Henderson.
The previous vision was to have I-69 swing more than a mile east of the Henderson city limits, crossing U.S. 60-East between Broadview and Pleasantview subdivisions; passing over Kentucky 351 west of Zion; and then crossing the Audubon Parkway before tying into the Pennyrile Parkway somewhere south of the Kentucky 425/South Bypass, a mile or two south of Henderson.
BridgeLink instead proposes having I-69 skirt Henderson’s eastern city limits, crossing U.S. 60-East just east of the railroad viaduct, then passing through farmland behind Balmoral Acres subdivision before tying into the U.S. 41-Bypass (between Kentucky 351 and the U.S. 60 cloverleaf) just north of where it connects with the Pennyrile.
Such a route would trim the length of the new roadway from 9.2 miles to 6.2 miles and reduce the number of interchanges that would be required from five to three by eliminating the need for interchanges at Kentucky 351 and the Audubon Parkway.
“It misses Audubon State Park, it misses the wetlands (along the Ohio River that are associated with the park) and goes between housing (subdivisions),” Austin said. “All these things are doable and they come in at slightly less than $800 million,” helped in part by reducing the estimated cost of design work and project contingency percentage to what he called “industry standards.” ....
As for reducing the bridge itself from six lanes to four, Austin said that would be comparable to the newly opened I-70 bridge across the Mississippi River at St. Louis, which he said handles traffic volumes comparable to an I-69 bridge here ....
BridgeLink also contends that the cost of maintenance on the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges could be reduced if all heavy trucks were required to use the I-69 bridge; Austin said getting heavy trucks off U.S. 41 might also make it feasible to eventually convert the 82-year-old northbound U.S. 41 bridge for use by pedestrians and bicyclists only.



Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx

From the above-linked article:
Quote
The BridgeLink proposal for the bridge approach was one of nine that Kentucky and Indiana considered more than a decade ago, he noted. (Kentucky Transportation Cabinet engineers have also recently been looking at ways to reduce the length and cost of the approach route.)

A new environmental study will have to be conducted; it seems like this alternative was passed over a decade ago.  It will be interesting to see if this alternative survives the environmental process this time around.



Here is a snip of the map of BridgeLink's suggested alternative from the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/1YMqwHf.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on July 16, 2014, 10:49:47 PM
Of course, if they move the new bridge closer to the existing one, or (as seems likely) have to decommission the older of the two existing US 41 spans, it may end up attracting more traffic sooner than they anticipate. Even if you omit the US 60 interchange now to reduce the diversion attraction, there's no guarantee 10-20 years down the road the locals won't push for it to be added and consequently overload the new bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 17, 2014, 06:35:26 AM
I didn't realize that the original proposal called for a six-lane I-69 bridge. On one hand, that is good thinking ahead, but on the other hand, would it be necessary for a while with the US 41 bridges in place, even if one of the spans would need to be decommissioned? I wonder if the original proposal also called for the entire new terrain route to be six lanes, or just the Ohio River bridge?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 17, 2014, 06:55:04 AM
I'm surprised at the new route—this is where I already assumed was the logical place for it to go.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 17, 2014, 09:06:43 AM
I like the proposed route a lot better... never made sense to me why they weren't going to use more of the existing parkway.

Since they'll be using electronic tolling on the bridge, I think 4 lanes will be fine.  I'd like to see them acquire the ROW so that they could build another parallel bridge in 30-50 years if needed (if one of the US 41 bridges is decommissioned or if traffic increases a lot).

I think the biggest positive is the reduced cost makes funding a lot more feasible, since according to the article tolls would generate $380 million over the first 20 years.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 17, 2014, 09:08:02 AM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on July 17, 2014, 09:11:10 AM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?

They could build a new 41 bridge and replace the really old one. Then route 69 onto US 41 over the River.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 17, 2014, 09:21:35 AM
They could but having 2 crossings is better
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 17, 2014, 10:23:24 AM

Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?

They could build a new 41 bridge and replace the really old one. Then route 69 onto US 41 over the River.

The ROW is too difficult in Henderson.  Old news. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 17, 2014, 12:57:38 PM
I can't see a six-lane bridge being necessary here. The I-24 bridge at Paducah is only four lanes, and there's no good alternative nearby (the US 45 bridge is old, has a steel deck and has weight/width issues) like there is with the US 41 bridges. Four lanes should be fine.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 17, 2014, 06:33:58 PM
Just leave it alone and have I-69 run through Henderson like I-180 runs in WY and I-70 through Breezewood.  Tons of money saved and good enough to get the job done.  This is an excellent stopping point for folks. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 17, 2014, 09:35:45 PM
Just leave it alone and have I-69 run through Henderson like I-180 runs in WY and I-70 through Breezewood.  Tons of money saved and good enough to get the job done.  This is an excellent stopping point for folks. 

And while we're at it, let's just tear down I-10 in Baton Rouge and have interstate traffic use Airline Highway  and Perkins Road.

Seriously?? Either bad attempt of humor, or just plain crazy.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 17, 2014, 10:00:37 PM
US 41 already handles interstate traffic.  The bridges lead to Indiana, however, the other side of the river is still Kentucky at that point.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on July 17, 2014, 10:08:36 PM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
It needs to be replaced anyways, and US 41 will likely have no need for more than two lanes after I-69 is built.  Why not save some money?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on July 17, 2014, 10:21:53 PM
US 41 already handles interstate traffic.  The bridges lead to Indiana, however, the other side of the river is still Kentucky at that point.

And just how well is it handling parkway to what currently exists of the I-69 corridor?  How is the level of service/capacity and the accident rate?  How well is it going to handle this traffic in 20 years  when more parts of the I-69 corridor are completed?

I wonder if six lanes for the new bridge was more along the lines of building the bridge so it can handle six lanes in the future, but initially stripe it for four lanes kind of plan?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 17, 2014, 10:41:25 PM
Just leave it alone and have I-69 run through Henderson like I-180 runs in WY and I-70 through Breezewood.  Tons of money saved and good enough to get the job done.  This is an excellent stopping point for folks. 

The Henderson strip is already a cluster foxtrot. When I-69 becomes substantially complete in Indiana and Tennessee, or at least to Dyersburg, where traffic can jump over and hit I-55 in Missouri and Arkansas, and more through traffic starts using I-69, it'll be even worse.

Somebody else complained about I-73/I-74 hatred in another thread. I don't understand this objection to I-69.



I've driven I-40 between Nashville and Memphis once, and that's enough for me. I hated that route. Talk about long and boring. If I'm in Indy and I want to get to Memphis, or to a destination that involves a routing through Memphis, I'm taking I-69. Heck, I'd probably use IN 37 and other routes to get to the completed section of I-69 now. The reason being, you avoid Louisville, you avoid Nashville, and you avoid the heavy traffic on I-65 between Indy and Louisville, and I-40 between Nashville and Memphis.

Even now, I'd rather use the Kentucky parkways and US 51 than go through Nashville and have to endure I-40.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 18, 2014, 08:48:20 AM
When I need to get to Chicagoland and points north in WI I use US 41.  The highway is just fine as is.  Yes the bridge does need work.  I don't want it to collapse and dump into the Ohio.  I think it is a nice break to stop in Henderson, not that Henderson is something special, but just nice to say hey it is time to stop.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 18, 2014, 09:25:36 AM

When I need to get to Chicagoland and points north in WI I use US 41.  The highway is just fine as is.  Yes the bridge does need work.  I don't want it to collapse and dump into the Ohio.  I think it is a nice break to stop in Henderson, not that Henderson is something special, but just nice to say hey it is time to stop.

You are aware, right, that long-distance, high-speed through routes are designed to keep people moving fast the whole way, and  that the notion of a predecided/encouraged/forced commercial-corridor detour from those routes is presumptuous and contrary to the aforementioned goal,

right?



Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on July 18, 2014, 09:52:29 AM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
It needs to be replaced anyways, and US 41 will likely have no need for more than two lanes after I-69 is built.  Why not save some money?

Wanna bet?  US-41 connects the downtowns of two cities on either side of the Ohio River at this point.  It should maintain 4 lanes (2 per direction).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on July 18, 2014, 03:54:14 PM
When I need to get to Chicagoland and points north in WI I use US 41.  The highway is just fine as is.  Yes the bridge does need work.  I don't want it to collapse and dump into the Ohio.  I think it is a nice break to stop in Henderson, not that Henderson is something special, but just nice to say hey it is time to stop.

I'm sure this is what the people in Breezewood, Pennsylvania think. You shouldn't be forced on an interstate to stop in one particular town over another. If you want to stop for a break in Henderson, fine, if you want to stop in Evansville (a larger city with more services,) fine, if you want to wait until Madisonville, fine again. It should be your choice and something not forced upon you because the leaders of that community zoned it that way.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on July 18, 2014, 09:16:44 PM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
It needs to be replaced anyways, and US 41 will likely have no need for more than two lanes after I-69 is built.  Why not save some money?

Wanna bet?  US-41 connects the downtowns of two cities on either side of the Ohio River at this point.  It should maintain 4 lanes (2 per direction).
Why wouldn't they just get on I-69 for the short hop?  I guarantee you there will be at least one Henderson interchange on that side of the city and an interchange near where the current US 41/I-69 interchange is.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on July 19, 2014, 12:07:24 AM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
It needs to be replaced anyways, and US 41 will likely have no need for more than two lanes after I-69 is built.  Why not save some money?

Wanna bet?  US-41 connects the downtowns of two cities on either side of the Ohio River at this point.  It should maintain 4 lanes (2 per direction).
Why wouldn't they just get on I-69 for the short hop?  I guarantee you there will be at least one Henderson interchange on that side of the city and an interchange near where the current US 41/I-69 interchange is.

Considering that the road on both sides of the bridge into each town is 4 lanes, it's wisest to just maintain the  4 lanes.  Why should all traffic be forced to use the I-69 Bridge?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on July 19, 2014, 09:19:59 PM
I would think it would be more convenient.  Don't interstates have higher speed limits?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 19, 2014, 09:20:30 PM
Usually
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 19, 2014, 09:56:24 PM
It's a non-starter because you'd lose a lot of goodwill in Henderson over it.  There's a lot of personal and municipal income dependent on that 41 strip and the traffic flowing past.  Sometimes politics is more important than engineering in getting things done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 19, 2014, 09:57:44 PM
I wouldn't say more important, I'd say more popular
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 20, 2014, 03:25:02 AM
When I need to get to Chicagoland and points north in WI I use US 41.  The highway is just fine as is.  Yes the bridge does need work.  I don't want it to collapse and dump into the Ohio.  I think it is a nice break to stop in Henderson, not that Henderson is something special, but just nice to say hey it is time to stop.

That's the reason we have those things called "exits" and "business routes".

Through traffic that is bypassing Henderson should not have to endure stoppage and traffic lights just so you can have a "great place to rest". Either upgrade US 41 to proper Interstate standards with a new/better bridge, or build the bypass. I-69 is mostly about international freight/national travel between Mexico/South Texas and the Midwest, anyway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 20, 2014, 08:27:49 AM
The whole "international freight" thing I always thought was bs.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 20, 2014, 01:55:02 PM

When I need to get to Chicagoland and points north in WI I use US 41.  The highway is just fine as is.  Yes the bridge does need work.  I don't want it to collapse and dump into the Ohio.  I think it is a nice break to stop in Henderson, not that Henderson is something special, but just nice to say hey it is time to stop.

That's the reason we have those things called "exits" and "business routes".

Through traffic that is bypassing Henderson should not have to endure stoppage and traffic lights just so you can have a "great place to rest". Either upgrade US 41 to proper Interstate standards with a new/better bridge, or build the bypass. I-69 is mostly about international freight/national travel between Mexico/South Texas and the Midwest, anyway.

Henderson' strip will also do just fine as the best cluster of just-off-exit services for many miles (getting off for those things at the Lloyd requires a lot of extraneous driving). 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on July 20, 2014, 07:58:53 PM
The whole "international freight" thing I always thought was bs.
Agreed.  We already have a perfectly good interstate system international freight can use.  Aside from south Texas, the most-used part of I-69 for international traffic will probably be the Michigan one, to bypass Detroit.  The interior parts of I-69 will likely never be more than anything beyond regional connectors.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 20, 2014, 10:33:11 PM
My thoughts as well with regard to the Reconquistador Connector.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on August 01, 2014, 09:30:41 AM
Here is a snip of the map of BridgeLink's suggested alternative from the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/1YMqwHf.jpg)

This is what my scribblings from a while back also show for a routing for such a crossing - IMHO it just makes the most sense, carrying the through traffic, allowing convenient I-route access to the locals while maintaining the local utility of the current US 41 routing at the lowest cost.

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: qguy on August 01, 2014, 10:35:59 AM
Does anyone have a link to the actual proposal by Bridgelink?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadMaster09 on August 03, 2014, 09:30:16 PM
New here - but having just travelled there on a vacation, I would say the best idea:

* Replace the older US 41 bridge and rehabilitate the existing US 41 bridge

* Upgrade existing US 41 in Henderson to a freeway (speed limit: 55 mph), elevating at ramps, using service roads to maintain local access

* Interchanges at Waterworks Road for island area access, KY-414/Stratman Road (partial - to/from north only) and Watson Lane, and a reconstruction of the US 60 interchange to eliminate some loop ramps and improve service road access

Lowest cost routing that allows for I-69 to be continuous relatively quickly.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on August 04, 2014, 07:34:21 AM
New here - but having just travelled there on a vacation, I would say the best idea:

* Replace the older US 41 bridge and rehabilitate the existing US 41 bridge

* Upgrade existing US 41 in Henderson to a freeway (speed limit: 55 mph), elevating at ramps, using service roads to maintain local access

* Interchanges at Waterworks Road for island area access, KY-414/Stratman Road (partial - to/from north only) and Watson Lane, and a reconstruction of the US 60 interchange to eliminate some loop ramps and improve service road access

Lowest cost routing that allows for I-69 to be continuous relatively quickly.

I agree with everything except for the US 60 part. Why would you want to ruin a perfectly good interchange?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 04, 2014, 07:41:21 AM
I think keeping them separate is better having a bypass for through traffic would be great especially in the event that an accident closes a bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadMaster09 on August 11, 2014, 02:09:34 PM
I think keeping them separate is better having a bypass for through traffic would be great especially in the event that an accident closes a bridge.

Couldn't they just move traffic to one lane on the other bridge though (except during replacement or reconstruction)? After all, those bridges will need major work anyway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on August 31, 2014, 11:51:01 PM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
They could build a new 41 bridge and replace the really old one. Then route 69 onto US 41 over the River.
The ROW is too difficult in Henderson.  Old news.

In this August 19 video interview of KYTC's Keith Todd (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/in-depth-keith-todd-addresses-i-69-traffic-concern/25425/HRK6OjbrcEqyV0aeTYJsIw), Todd mentions that KYTC's senior engineers are exploring the possibility of taking out the double turn lanes on Henderson's strip in order to add an extra travel lane.  They are anticipating substantial extra traffic in five to ten years and believe that adding the extra traffic lane would greatly improve the traffic flow.  The traffic flow dipped to approximately 37,000 vehicles per day several years ago, but has slowly crept back up to 41,000 vehicles per day.



A bridge like "The Stan" would be sufficient to carry traffic across the Ohio there for at least the foreseeable future, IMHO.  Keep in mind, most local traffic would probably still use the Twin Bridges.  I could be wrong, but if it they can find a way to get it for less, I think they ought to do it.

Above said, I don't think Todd was suggesting that a new travel lane would remove the need for an I-69 bridge; it would basically serve as a short-term solution until the new bridge could be built.  Regarding a new I-69 bridge, Todd suggested that a bridge like "The Stan" would be sufficient for the anticipated traffic flow.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 24, 2014, 05:27:18 PM
In the recently completed I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf), the Final Findings set forth a standalone traffic and toll analysis for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge
On pages 47-49/122 of the Final Findings (pages 42-44 of the document), an analysis is performed under three scenarios to determine what percentage of the bridge's project cost could be covered by innovative financing.  The three scenarios and the percentage covered by innovative financing:
1. Base Case: This case assumes the SIU’s financing is solely supported by toll revenues. 71%.
2. Case 1: Under this case, the security for the bonds and the TIFIA loan are enhanced by a contractual obligation of the State DOT to pay operations, maintenance and rehabilitation, and replacement expenses to the extent toll revenues are not sufficient. This back‐up obligation or “credit enhancement” allows the bonds and TIFIA loan to be secured by a pledge of gross toll revenues. 90%.
3. Case 2: This case improves on Case 1 by adding a full secondary lien security or legal pledge to the debt from a high credit worthy nontoll revenue source(s) such as a state transportation trust fund or a state’s full faith and credit. This significantly improves the SIU’s credit rating to an assumed ‘AA‐’ that results in additional project debt proceeds. 100%.

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/engineers-say-too-soon-to-say-where-i69-will-go-how-it-will-be-paid-for_59975520) reports that Kentucky’s assistant state highway engineer with primary responsibility for the I-69 project believes that the use of tolls to finance the bridge should be given "careful consideration":

Quote
Further studies are being done or are on the drawing board, said Rusty Fowler, the district engineer with the Indiana Department of Transportation who has responsibility for the southwest part of the state. “That’s the first thing we’ve got to find out — how are we going to fund this thing.
“If we don’t follow the rules it jeopardizes federal funding,”
he said in response to a question on why design hasn’t already begun. “We want to make sure we get the steps in the right order.”
Building the new bridge with toll revenue has been a popular idea, and one supported by BridgeLink. “We’re pushing for a tolled new interstate to help this move forward,” said Christy Gillenwater, BridgeLink’s moderator of the panel.
But Paul Looney, Kentucky’s assistant state highway engineer with primary responsibility for the I-69 project, said that idea needs careful consideration.
“Tolling could be a primary financing mechanism,” said Looney, who conceded he is “relatively new to the I-69 project.
“But one of the things (the planning study indicated) was that the toll revenue may be inadequate if the existing bridges are left in place, given the diversion of traffic that may occur.”

Henderson and Evansville are “two cities-one community to a large degree,” in that many people cross the river on a regular basis to work, play and shop. “The local connection in having it be toll-free is obviously … a critical element for the day-to-day connectivity of the area.”
But leaving the Twin Bridges toll-free while charging tolls on a new I-69 bridge could pose a “challenge,” he said, in that the toll revenues may not be sufficient to pay off the bonds.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 24, 2014, 10:52:25 PM
Ban trucks on the old bridges and restripe them to one lane. That'll force much of the through traffic onto the I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on September 25, 2014, 06:45:20 AM
Ban trucks on the old bridges and restripe them to one lane. That'll force much of the through traffic onto the I-69 bridge.

Or if the older bridge is demolished or converted to a pedestrian/bike facility.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 25, 2014, 07:40:22 AM
Just throw a few traffic lights up on 41 near Ellis Park for no particular reason.  Everywhere else makes it inconvenient to shunpike; they just need to learn the tricks.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on September 25, 2014, 07:41:27 AM
Just throw a few traffic lights up on 41 near Ellis Park for no particular reason.  Everywhere else makes it inconvenient to shunpike; they just need to learn the tricks.
Hahahaha so pull a kokomo?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 25, 2014, 11:43:11 AM
Just throw a few traffic lights up on 41 near Ellis Park for no particular reason.  Everywhere else makes it inconvenient to shunpike; they just need to learn the tricks.

The way traffic can jam up on the Henderson stretch now, I can understand the desire to pay a toll to bypass that congestion, especially if a completed I-69 leads to an increase in through traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on September 25, 2014, 08:33:02 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

That could be the eventual compromise........build the new bridge as toll, and keep a single two-lane US 41 bridge open as a free facility.  The congestion on the free bridge will attract traffic to the new span.  Also, keep the tolls reasonable, especially for frequent travelers. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 25, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSF on September 26, 2014, 05:55:56 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Was not a fun time to travel that stretch of US-41, not that there ever is.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on September 28, 2014, 05:41:32 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on September 28, 2014, 06:32:17 PM
Sure, once those bridges are brought up to interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 29, 2014, 10:43:17 AM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on September 29, 2014, 06:46:05 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.

I know, but there are many other sections of interstates that aren't interstate quality. Are there 2 lanes each direction across the 2 bridges? Yes. Semis and cars travel them safely every day. They're there and ready to be used. The 41 / 164 interchange is also good as far as 69 is concerned.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on September 29, 2014, 08:25:31 PM
^If the current I-164/US 41 interchange was good enough, I'm sure the Pennyrile/Western Kentucky cloverleaf would not be getting a direct ramp for the EB to NB movement.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on September 29, 2014, 08:31:19 PM
^If the current I-164/US 41 interchange was good enough, I'm sure the Pennyrile/Western Kentucky cloverleaf would not be getting a direct ramp for the EB to NB movement.
It doesn't need to get a direct ramp. But FHWA.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on September 30, 2014, 12:56:30 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.

I know, but there are many other sections of interstates that aren't interstate quality. Are there 2 lanes each direction across the 2 bridges? Yes. Semis and cars travel them safely every day. They're there and ready to be used. The 41 / 164 interchange is also good as far as 69 is concerned.
Those were either grandfathered in when the interstate system was started or were built to older standards.  New interstates (even using existing pavement) do not get grandfathered in.  I think a road needs to be upgraded for a new interstate even if it already has an interstate designation (see: I-81 in Binghamton).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on September 30, 2014, 02:00:36 PM
^If the current I-164/US 41 interchange was good enough, I'm sure the Pennyrile/Western Kentucky cloverleaf would not be getting a direct ramp for the EB to NB movement.
It doesn't need to get a direct ramp. But FHWA.

PS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on September 30, 2014, 08:43:53 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.

I know, but there are many other sections of interstates that aren't interstate quality. Are there 2 lanes each direction across the 2 bridges? Yes. Semis and cars travel them safely every day. They're there and ready to be used. The 41 / 164 interchange is also good as far as 69 is concerned.
Those were either grandfathered in when the interstate system was started or were built to older standards.  New interstates (even using existing pavement) do not get grandfathered in.  I think a road needs to be upgraded for a new interstate even if it already has an interstate designation (see: I-81 in Binghamton).

Well there should be an exception here. A billion dollars isn't exactly easy to come by all because there's not a shoulder on the existing bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on September 30, 2014, 08:45:04 PM
I think the real reason is the old bridges are not worth fixing for an interstate and they would like to have multiple crossings
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: froggie on October 01, 2014, 08:55:32 AM
Quote
PS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.

PPS:  that was designed and construction began before I-69 was approved.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on October 01, 2014, 09:12:56 AM
Quote
PS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.

PPS:  that was designed and construction began before I-69 was approved.


PPPS: so was the cloverleaf in Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on October 02, 2014, 06:51:50 AM
Quote
PS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.

PPS:  that was designed and construction began before I-69 was approved.


PPPS: so was the cloverleaf in Kentucky.

And so were the US 41 bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on October 02, 2014, 12:53:24 PM
When was the Mississippi I-69 section designated?  I know the FHWA was once a lot looser with standards when designating interstates on an existing road than they are now.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 08, 2015, 11:16:36 AM
KYTC has posted the 2014 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Pages/2014-Highway-Plan.aspx). The Project Listing (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Highway%20Plan/2014RecommendedProjectListing.pdf) section includes preliminary engineering and environmental in 2018 for a possible US 41 bridge replacement as an intermediate solution for an I-69 bridge (page 55/139 of pdf)
(http://i.imgur.com/BnoPeJA.png)
Kyndle is a new organization born of the merger of the Henderson Chamber of Commerce and the Northwest Kentucky Forward regional economic development organization:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/dec/20/merger-of-chamber-nwkf-into-kyndle-now-official/
(bottom quote from I-69 in KY (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg281743#msg281743) thread)

In this Comment (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/opinion/comment-kyndle-lays-out-legislative-priorities_73384752), Kyndle urges the Kentucky General Assembly to move the availability of funding for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") from 2018 to 2016*, supports state legislation that would enable public-private partnerships in Kentucky, and urges federal entities to give I-69 the proper designations to enable it to receive significant federal money:

Quote
Kyndle applauds the states of Kentucky and Indiana for continuing to work diligently toward the completion of Interstate 69 in our region.
We urge the General Assembly to protect funds allocated for I-69 construction in our state and to continue to add the funding necessary to achieve its creation. We applaud the amount of support I-69 has in the road plan, including $2.5 million for an environmental impact study (EIS) for an I-69 Ohio River crossing. Kyndle asks legislators to work to move the availability of that EIS money from 2018 to 2016. We also ask legislators to work with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to assure a long-term, toll-free route across the Ohio for local residents that would be both a compliment [sic] to the new I-69 bridge and provide the redundancy this region needs to assure that accidents such as barge collisions into the bridge or natural disasters won't result in a shutdown of traffic between Evansville and Henderson.
Kyndle urges the General Assembly to create a revenue model for the state road fund that would produce more consistent funding for infrastructure projects and make it easier for KYTC to plan for the state's future transportation needs.
Kyndle strongly encourages Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration to designate Interstate 69 as a Project of National and Regional Significance and include it in the new National Freight Network list.
Kyndle supports legislation enabling Kentucky to fully utilize public-private partnerships (P3) to complete infrastructure projects of all types and find more cost-efficient, effective ways to perform government functions.

They seem resigned to the probability that the I-69 bridge will be tolled; as a result, they want to ensure that at least one of the US 41 bridges will be in operation for a long time as a toll-free facility.

edit

* Kyndle may be confused; as reflected in the top above quote, the funding for the EIS is intended for an intermediate US 41 solution for the Ohio River crossing before construction of the I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 08, 2015, 09:00:48 PM
Add this to the "waste of money in your state" category.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever to spend that much money on design for replacement of a bridge that, while old, got a lot of work just five or so years ago and will see the amount of traffic on it decrease when a new I-69 bridge is built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 09, 2015, 07:31:33 AM
Add this to the "waste of money in your state" category.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever to spend that much money on design for replacement of a bridge that, while old, got a lot of work just five or so years ago and will see the amount of traffic on it decrease when a new I-69 bridge is built.

I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 09, 2015, 09:44:22 AM
Add this to the "waste of money in your state" category.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever to spend that much money on design for replacement of a bridge that, while old, got a lot of work just five or so years ago and will see the amount of traffic on it decrease when a new I-69 bridge is built.

I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 09, 2015, 11:08:47 AM
I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.

No, I don't think they'd work. ROW purchase and relocation costs would be astronomical.

I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.

That's not what I'm saying. The southbound bridge, especially, is woefully inadequate for an interstate bridge. What I'm saying is it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money at this time on a potential replacement for the southbound bridge when the I-69 bridge(s), when built, will take a lot of traffic off of the US 41 corridor and probably give the existing bridge a new lease on life. Given the difficulty in converting the US 41 Henderson strip to an interstate (see above), a new-terrain I-69 route with a new bridge is the best option.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 09, 2015, 11:11:21 AM
I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.

No, I don't think they'd work. ROW purchase and relocation costs would be astronomical.

I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.

That's not what I'm saying. The southbound bridge, especially, is woefully inadequate for an interstate bridge. What I'm saying is it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money at this time on a potential replacement for the southbound bridge when the I-69 bridge(s), when built, will take a lot of traffic off of the US 41 corridor and probably give the existing bridge a new lease on life. Given the difficulty in converting the US 41 Henderson strip to an interstate (see above), a new-terrain I-69 route with a new bridge is the best option.

I think they should maintain both crossings as 4 lane crossings.  traffic would decrease on 41, but would it be low enough to downgrade to just 2 lanes over that river?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 09, 2015, 07:10:57 PM
Something else to consider, that loop ramp from WB 69 to SB 41. No way that will be allowed to continue if they went that route, that interchange, or part of it would have to be rebuilt similar to what's being done at the Pennyrile-Western Kentucky interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on February 09, 2015, 08:13:44 PM
Something else to consider, that loop ramp from WB 69 to SB 41. No way that will be allowed to continue if they went that route, that interchange, or part of it would have to be rebuilt similar to what's being done at the Pennyrile-Western Kentucky interchange.
I-55/I-69 in Mississippi...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 10, 2015, 12:27:41 AM

I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.

No, I don't think they'd work. ROW purchase and relocation costs would be astronomical.

I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.

That's not what I'm saying. The southbound bridge, especially, is woefully inadequate for an interstate bridge. What I'm saying is it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money at this time on a potential replacement for the southbound bridge when the I-69 bridge(s), when built, will take a lot of traffic off of the US 41 corridor and probably give the existing bridge a new lease on life. Given the difficulty in converting the US 41 Henderson strip to an interstate (see above), a new-terrain I-69 route with a new bridge is the best option.

This is the first I have heard of an interim 41 bridge replacement.  Has this actually been proposed?  Particularly given talk I've heard here that there was recent rehab work done there, this would seem to make sense... to nobody.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 10, 2015, 06:35:00 AM
Something else to consider, that loop ramp from WB 69 to SB 41. No way that will be allowed to continue if they went that route, that interchange, or part of it would have to be rebuilt similar to what's being done at the Pennyrile-Western Kentucky interchange.
I-55/I-69 in Mississippi...

Which should also be modified to a directional ramp/flyover for continuity's sake. Through routes should not be delegated to one-lane loop ramps.


Also...wasn't the original concept of the I-55/I-69/I-269 interchange based on I-69 going around the outer limits of Memphis via what is now I-269/TN 385??


As for the OP: I'd prefer building a new I-69 bridge/bypass and keeping the older US 41 bridge for local connections, probably even adding pedestrian/bicycle access. No reason the two couldn't coexist.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 10, 2015, 06:44:23 AM
Something else to consider, that loop ramp from WB 69 to SB 41. No way that will be allowed to continue if they went that route, that interchange, or part of it would have to be rebuilt similar to what's being done at the Pennyrile-Western Kentucky interchange.
I-55/I-69 in Mississippi...
Also...wasn't the original concept of the I-55/I-69/I-269 interchange based on I-69 going around the outer limits of Memphis via what is now I-269/TN 385??

I don't think it was decided at the time the interchange was constructed if I-69 would go through Memphis or bypass Memphis. I suspect MDOT used a cloverleaf with C/D lanes since it was the cheaper option.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 12, 2015, 08:28:59 PM
In this Comment (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/opinion/comment-kyndle-lays-out-legislative-priorities_73384752) ... :
Quote
Kyndle strongly encourages Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration to designate Interstate 69 as a Project of National and Regional Significance and include it in the new National Freight Network list.
Kyndle supports legislation enabling Kentucky to fully utilize public-private partnerships (P3) to complete infrastructure projects of all types and find more cost-efficient, effective ways to perform government functions.

In this article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/bus-service-between-henderson-evansville-being-discussed_62590212), Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke is quoted as asserting that the I-69 Ohio River Bridge is currently being reviewed at the federal level for designation as a project of national or regional significance, which would increase the opportunity for federal funding; he is also quoted as asserting that Kentucky may pass legislation allowing public-private partnerships:

Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke ....
The new bridge is “the biggie” at this point, he said, but progress is being made at the federal level as well as in Indiana and Kentucky. The federal government is looking at designating the bridge as a project of national or regional importance, which would open new funding opportunities.
Indiana is studying whether tolls could help fund it, and Kentucky may pass legislation allowing public-private partnerships, which Winnecke called “a key financing tool that can be used for Kentucky to help make the project happen.”
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 12, 2015, 09:02:54 PM
There is a contingent from northern Kentucky who are dead-set against P3 in Kentucky because they are dead-set against tolls for the Brent Spence Bridge. The governor vetoed a P3 bill last year because it contained a provision against tolls. He's stated that if he doesn't get a clean P3 bill this year, he'll veto it too.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 13, 2015, 03:45:09 PM
I really don't think tolls would fund the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, at least in the foreseeable future. There won't be enough of a traffic increase at the onset, so most locals will just continue to use the US 41 bridge instead.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 25, 2015, 10:47:06 AM
In this article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/bus-service-between-henderson-evansville-being-discussed_62590212), Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke ... :
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke ....
The new bridge is “the biggie” at this point, he said ... Indiana is studying whether tolls could help fund it ...”

In his State of the City Address that is quoted here (https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=69505), Evansville Mayor Winnecke states that the Indiana toll study should be completed "later this summer":

Quote
One strategic investment by the state is Interstate 69. Yes, the trip to Bloomington is much better, and the trip to Indianapolis will get even better in the years to come.
I'd like to recognize my colleague from Henderson, Kentucky, Mayor Steve Austin.
Together with the Bridge Link coalition, our advocacy for the future Interstate 69 bridges is steadfast and gaining traction in Indianapolis and Frankfort. The Indiana Department of Transportation is currently working on a statewide transportation funding outline. In that report, INDOT is conducting a tolling study for the Interstate 69 bridge project and should be completed later this summer.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2015, 08:06:50 PM
I really don't think tolls would fund the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, at least in the foreseeable future. There won't be enough of a traffic increase at the onset, so most locals will just continue to use the US 41 bridge instead.

This may be the real irony here—northbound traffic going into most of Evansville would be going out of their way to stay on an easterly-alignment 69.  Traffic would end up somewhat lighter on 41, so it might be a more attractive route.  This is where missing ramp movements to coerce toll payment (a la Garden State Parkway, Mass Pike Extension) come in handy, but that'd be shitty.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 26, 2015, 09:57:08 AM
In this article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/bus-service-between-henderson-evansville-being-discussed_62590212), Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke is quoted as asserting that ... Kentucky may pass legislation allowing public-private partnerships:
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke ....
Kentucky may pass legislation allowing public-private partnerships, which Winnecke called “a key financing tool that can be used for Kentucky to help make the project happen.”
There is a contingent from northern Kentucky who are dead-set against P3 in Kentucky because they are dead-set against tolls for the Brent Spence Bridge. The governor vetoed a P3 bill last year because it contained a provision against tolls. He's stated that if he doesn't get a clean P3 bill this year, he'll veto it too.

This article (http://www.enquirerherald.com/2015/02/26/3392387/kentucky-house-passes-public-private.html) reports that a bill authorizing the use of P3s in Kentucky easily passed the Kentucky House and that an amendment banning the use of tolls on the Brent Spence was defeated:

Quote
In a debate overshadowed by an ambitious bridge proposal on the state's northern tier, the Kentucky House passed legislation Wednesday evening that would authorize use of public-private partnerships for mega-dollar transportation work and other projects ....
The Democratic-run House passed the measure on an 84-13 vote after considering a series of amendments. The bill now goes to the Republican-led Senate ....
In a key vote, the House defeated an amendment by Rep. Arnold Simpson that would have banned the use of tolls to fund a new Brent Spence Bridge.
Similar anti-tolling language was attached to last year's public-private partnerships bill, prompting a veto by Gov. Steve Beshear, who is a strong advocate for the partnerships ....
Rep. Tommy Thompson said western Kentucky stands to benefit from the partnerships. He said state and federal governments can't muster the financing for mega-projects such as a possible new Ohio River bridge as part of the Interstate 69 project in western Kentucky.
"The only way that's going to probably become a reality, for we need that in our part of the state, is with a public-private partnership,"
the Owensboro Democrat said.

On to the Kentucky Senate ......................
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 14, 2015, 10:06:54 AM
it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money at this time on a potential replacement for the southbound bridge when the I-69 bridge(s), when built, will take a lot of traffic off of the US 41 corridor and probably give the existing bridge a new lease on life. Given the difficulty in converting the US 41 Henderson strip to an interstate ... a new-terrain I-69 route with a new bridge is the best option.

Community leaders and participants in Henderson have posted a March 2015 Henderson Vision Comprehensive Plan (https://visionhenderson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/henderson-vision-plan_final-march-2015.pdf), in which they provide a blueprint for how Henderson should evolve in the future.  As far as I can tell, the vision presumes that the I-69 Ohio River Bridge will eventually be built; as a result, I find it interesting how they want the US 41 Strip to evolve after construction of the I-69 bridge.  First, they want small area plans to be developed around the future I-69 interchanges and the function of the US 41 corridor (page 110/124 of pdf; p. 103 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/gsIqVtb.jpg)

Next, they focus in on the US 41 corridor (p. 113/124 of pdf; p. 106 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/6xwWE7i.jpg)

So, the Big Picture for the US 41 Strip is to transform into a Complete Street.

Also, the group identified Second Street as the future main gateway into Henderson and that it should evolve into a gateway, a district, and a greenway (p. 115/124 of pdf; p. 108 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/lN3yHKa.jpg)

Here is a snip of the group's Access & Mobility map (p.77/124 of pdf; p. 70 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/tIj5dZi.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 02, 2015, 11:49:25 PM
This article (http://www.enquirerherald.com/2015/02/26/3392387/kentucky-house-passes-public-private.html) reports that a bill authorizing the use of P3s in Kentucky easily passed the Kentucky House and that an amendment banning the use of tolls on the Brent Spence was defeated ....
On to the Kentucky Senate ......................

Well, the P3 legislation did not pass and this March 27 blog (http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2015/03/potential-for-tolls-didn-t-kill-brent-spence.html?page=all) comments on the reasons why the Kentucky Senate failed to pass the P3 legislation:

Quote
In the GOP-controlled Senate, one prominent Republican leader, state Sen. Damon Thayer, opposes tolls and so do members of the Northern Kentucky delegation. But that isn’t what sunk the legislation there in 2015.  In 2015, the legislation was filed late to try to buy time and build support. This year, it did not have a provision for local projects because Beshear’s office and the groups representing Kentucky cities and counties could not agree to language. That became a problem when the short, 30-day 2015 legislative session was made shorter by bad weather ....
Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce CEO Trey Grayson, a former Kentucky secretary of state and experienced Frankfort hand ....
In the case of the P3 bill, Kentucky’s cities and counties didn’t actively try to snuff it out, Grayson said, but it ended up being left behind because lawmakers outside of Northern Kentucky didn’t care enough about getting it done.
“You just kind of ran out of time,” Grayson said.
“The only people who cared a lot about it at the end were the three Northern Kentuckians who were opposed. As a result, it was easy to set aside. If you’d had one more week, it probably would have passed.”
In 2016, the game will have changed. Kentucky elects a new governor in November.
“The wild card will be what is the new governor’s position on the Brent Spence Bridge as a piece of this,” Grayson said.

This April 2 article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/ridley-says-kentucky-needs-bipartisan-cooperation-in-legislature_01404955) reports that Western Kentucky officals want P3 as an option for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, even if Northern Kentucky officials are opposed to tolls:

Quote
Sen. Dorsey Ridley .... said ....
"If they will at least come across the aisle and have a conversation with us we could do that. We could have passed the P3 (public-private partnership) legislation, in my estimation, and allow us to move forward in building the bridge we need on I-69."
Kyndle CEO and President Brad Schneider agreed
, but said "in Kentucky, sometimes our differences are regional more than they are by party.
"Next session, let the folks in Northern Kentucky know — while they figure out what they want to do — we'd love to move forward here," Schneider said. To fund bridges and other infrastructure in Western Kentucky, he said, "P3 would be a great tool in the toolbox." ....
Rep. Suzanne Miles, R-Owensboro
....
expressed disappointment in the failure of the P3 legislation. "The main thing is for us to get that (Interstate 69) bridge. P3 is one of the best things for that opportunity."

A lot of talk regarding the I-69 Ohio River Bridge and a lot more time for talk before the 2016 session.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2015, 10:47:12 PM
This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020, and Winnecke says a new study supports a reduced cost estimate of $800 million to build the bridge:
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke says the I-69 bridge could be a lot cheaper than first projected.
Mayor Winnecke says a new study shows the bridge could cost about $800 million.
That's $600 million less than first thought.
Winnecke says this new estimate is partly based on the savings seen in St. Louis with the I-70 bridge.
"The 2008 estimate of $1.4 billion we believe is high," said Mayor Winnecke. "Now with what we've witnessed in St. Louis we really believe it's high, and so we have folks working to narrow to a more refined scope."
Mayor Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin hope to have the bridge built by the year 2020. Both expect it to be a toll bridge. However, a price to cross the bridge hasn't been revealed.

Slide 38/54 of an April 22, 2015 state-by-state status updates presented to the I-69 Congressional Caucus PowerPoint (linked on this page (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/resource.html)) confirms the revised cost estimate for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge:

(http://i.imgur.com/lX2cE2r.jpg)

However, it is unclear whether KYTC is aware of the new strategy.  This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/kentucky-transportation-head-i69-will-be-integral-to-henderson_19825252) reports that Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock was the featured speaker at a May 7 Kyndle meeting and that he provided a cost estimate for the bridge that appears to be more in line with "old" 2008 estimate:

Quote
Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock ....
As the effort to get I-69 to Henderson nears its completion, the next and greater challenge will be to construct an I-69 bridge from Henderson to Evansville.
“We estimate Kentucky’s share will be $1 billion,” Hancock said. Tolls will almost certainly be required, even if they don’t cover the full cost of financing the span.
While uncertainties remain, he said, efforts continue, “so we are not allowed to forget about crossing I-69 between Henderson and Evansville.”

The coordination of efforts might need to be tightened up a little.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 10, 2015, 06:20:10 AM
Shortened route?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on May 10, 2015, 11:07:12 PM
Shortened route?

I believe the "shortened route" moves the new route closer to US 41 and makes more use of the Pennyrile, rather than branching off to the east well to the south of KY 425 as originally planned. I believe the map in this post (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg2050548#msg2050548) reflects the shortened route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 10, 2015, 11:46:59 PM

Shortened route?

I believe the "shortened route" moves the new route closer to US 41 and makes more use of the Pennyrile, rather than branching off to the east well to the south of KY 425 as originally planned. I believe the map in this post (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg2050548#msg2050548) reflects the shortened route.

Ok.  This is the route I'm most familiar with, so I didn't realize it was shortened from whatever the cost estimates were based on. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 13, 2015, 07:24:06 PM
Here is a snip of the group's Access & Mobility map (p.77/124 of pdf; p. 70 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/tIj5dZi.jpg)

This is more like it.  Those older proposals with the new bridge out in the boonies are absurd.  I sure hope this gains traction.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on August 06, 2015, 10:59:50 AM
This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020 ...
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke says the I-69 bridge could be a lot cheaper than first projected.
Mayor Winnecke says a new study shows the bridge could cost about $800 million. That's $600 million less than first thought ...
Mayor Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin hope to have the bridge built by the year 2020. Both expect it to be a toll bridge. However, a price to cross the bridge hasn't been revealed.

This July 23 TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/mayors-state-of-the-city-henderson-is-doing-just-f/23396/6Y3gFJS6V0K-TCXSCVR15w) reports on Henderson Mayor Steve Austin's recent State of the City address and it includes an interview with him in which he asserts that the completion of I-69 and the I-69 Ohio River bridge is his number one priority, but he does not discuss either cost or a schedule to get it built:

Quote
In his State of the City address on Thursday afternoon, Henderson Mayor Steve Austin told the Rotary Club and others in attendance that the city has momentum. That momentum, Mayor Austin said, will take the city into the future ....
Mayor Austin said his number one priority still is the completion of I-69 and the construction of a new Ohio River bridge.
"We are working with our congressional folks and Washington folks. We are working with our state folks," Mayor Austin said. "We are working our highway departments. It's constantly on our mind and we're going to get it accomplished."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 06, 2015, 02:57:31 PM
Does anyone know when this bridge might be constructed? It seems like not for quite a while.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 06, 2015, 02:58:16 PM
Does anyone know when this bridge might be constructed? It seems like not for quite a while.
Not anytime soon, I don't even think it's been designed yet.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on August 07, 2015, 10:15:20 PM
March 2015 Henderson Vision Comprehensive Plan (https://visionhenderson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/henderson-vision-plan_final-march-2015.pdf) ....
Next, they focus in on the US 41 corridor (p. 113/124 of pdf; p. 106 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/6xwWE7i.jpg)
So, the Big Picture for the US 41 Strip is to transform into a Complete Street ....

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/state-considering-ways-to-ease-traffic-on-hendersons-us-41-strip_50348846) reports that KYTC is studying improvements to US 41 North, but uncertainty regarding the timetable for building the I-69 Ohio River bridge adds a difficult element to the study:

Quote
... a host of proposals generated by an engineering consultant for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to keep traffic moving and reduce wrecks and injuries on the busy highway.
The study was ordered after state Sen. Dorsey Ridley, of Henderson, asked the cabinet to look into making improvements on U.S. 41-North, said Kevin McClearn, the agency's District 2 chief district engineer, at a news conference Thursday afternoon.
The cabinet hired the Stantec engineering firm and directed it to perform a traffic study and develop options, "from low cost to high cost," for improving the highway, he said.
Stantec so far has identified projects ranging from less than $1 million to a collection of projects totaling $16.4 million.
The construction of a bridge for Interstate 69 across the Ohio River from Henderson to Evansville would remove much of the traffic from U.S. 41-North.
"Of course, one thing we are unsure of as to I-69 is when it's going to happen and where's it's going to go," McClearn said.
....
There's a possibility that a new bridge would replace the aging Twin Bridges, which are 50 and 83 years old, respectively.
"Obviously it will have a large impact on the strip," he said. " ... Do we want to spend several million dollars when a few years down the road I-69 comes through and removes the through traffic?"
On the other hand, relief is needed before then. U.S. 41-North carries an average of 40,400 vehicles a day between Marywood Drive and Watson Lane and about 38,000 across the Twin Bridges, according to McClearn.
That is only going to increase. He said Stantec projects that will go up about 1 percent each year, reaching almost 47,000 vehicles daily by 2030.
"Is there something we can do for a moderate amount (of money) for the next 10 or 15 years while we're getting (the) I-69 (bridge) built?" he said ....
Between 2012 and 2014, 433 crashes were reported along U.S. 41-North, with 86 injuries suffered. Two out of every five were rear-end collisions.
Among the proposals under consideration to address that:
Constructing a north-south "backage" road behind businesses on the east wide of U.S. 41-North so, for example, a motorist could travel from Henderson Chevrolet to Old Orchard Shopping Center without getting on the highway. Its cost is estimated at $3.3 million.
Raising the median along U.S. 41-North to eliminate left turns except at traffic signals.
Realigning the Audubon Village shopping center traffic signal to line up with Barker Road.
Meanwhile, an early proposal to add an extra driving lane in each direction was deemed unworkable because of lane widths, left-turn issues and the high cost of acquiring right of way along the highway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on August 18, 2015, 09:09:06 AM
Evansville folk continue to push for the bridge to get built

http://www.courierpress.com/news/i69/i69-bridge-could-help-perception-issue-for-evansville_72709575

Quote
Much of the discussion centered around Interstate 69 and specifically the prospective bridge from Evansville to Henderson that would provide a link to the Southern U.S. The theme was making Evansville more accessible and placing it along a major freight route.

State officials are in the process of determining where they will come up with the $850 million to build the bridge. But Dennis Faulkenberg, president and chief executive officer of APPIAN, said it’s imperative that people consider the significant benefits the bridge would provide.

“This is not to be a cul-de-sac in Evansville, and that’s what (I-69) is going to be without that bridge,” he said. “Surely we didn’t spend a billion dollars to get here for a cul-de-sac. This is to go on to greater things and to bring people to us. This is not just for us to get south; it’s to get people from the South coming to Evansville and doing business in Southwest Indiana.”

Quote
The next hurdle would be figuring out how to fund the Evansville-to-Henderson bridge. Tolls are a likely option and one that Faulkenberg said polls suggested the public would support if necessary.

Faulkenberg, who also works with the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation and BridgeLink, said he and other transportation experts met with Indiana and Kentucky legislators, namely Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, as well as Kentucky gubernatorial candidates Jack Conway and Matt Bevin, about the importance of the bridge. All have given supportive statements, he said.

Congressman Larry Bucshon, who helped start a bipartisan I-69 caucus in Congress earlier this year, spoke at a session at Monday’s event. He said a bridge connecting Evansville and Henderson via I-69 would “an enormous win for our regional and national economies.”

“The bridge would undoubtedly enhance the regional mobility of our products and people and improve the safety of the traveling public,” he said. “I plan to continue working with my colleagues in the Congressional I-69 Caucus, like Congressman Ed Whitfield, as well as regional leaders like the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Bridgelink and Mayor Lloyd Winnecke to complete this important component of our nation’s multi-modal freight transportation.”
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 18, 2015, 09:12:41 AM
Evansville folk continue to push for the bridge to get built

http://www.courierpress.com/news/i69/i69-bridge-could-help-perception-issue-for-evansville_72709575

Quote
Much of the discussion centered around Interstate 69 and specifically the prospective bridge from Evansville to Henderson that would provide a link to the Southern U.S. The theme was making Evansville more accessible and placing it along a major freight route.

State officials are in the process of determining where they will come up with the $850 million to build the bridge. But Dennis Faulkenberg, president and chief executive officer of APPIAN, said it’s imperative that people consider the significant benefits the bridge would provide.

“This is not to be a cul-de-sac in Evansville, and that’s what (I-69) is going to be without that bridge,” he said. “Surely we didn’t spend a billion dollars to get here for a cul-de-sac. This is to go on to greater things and to bring people to us. This is not just for us to get south; it’s to get people from the South coming to Evansville and doing business in Southwest Indiana.”

Quote
The next hurdle would be figuring out how to fund the Evansville-to-Henderson bridge. Tolls are a likely option and one that Faulkenberg said polls suggested the public would support if necessary.

Faulkenberg, who also works with the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation and BridgeLink, said he and other transportation experts met with Indiana and Kentucky legislators, namely Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, as well as Kentucky gubernatorial candidates Jack Conway and Matt Bevin, about the importance of the bridge. All have given supportive statements, he said.

Congressman Larry Bucshon, who helped start a bipartisan I-69 caucus in Congress earlier this year, spoke at a session at Monday’s event. He said a bridge connecting Evansville and Henderson via I-69 would “an enormous win for our regional and national economies.”

“The bridge would undoubtedly enhance the regional mobility of our products and people and improve the safety of the traveling public,” he said. “I plan to continue working with my colleagues in the Congressional I-69 Caucus, like Congressman Ed Whitfield, as well as regional leaders like the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Bridgelink and Mayor Lloyd Winnecke to complete this important component of our nation’s multi-modal freight transportation.”
They may get their wish, next year Indiana government claims it will be "infrastructure year" I'll believe it when I see it. 69 isn't really a culdesac per se, us 41 is good enough until it 69 is built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 06, 2015, 10:51:57 AM
Community leaders and participants in Henderson have posted a March 2015 Henderson Vision Comprehensive Plan (https://visionhenderson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/henderson-vision-plan_final-march-2015.pdf), in which they provide a blueprint for how Henderson should evolve in the future ....
Here is a snip of the group's Access & Mobility map (p.77/124 of pdf; p. 70 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/tIj5dZi.jpg)

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/workshop-will-help-guild-henderson-land-use_25731976) reports that, with the Vision Plan in place, Henderson is now working on the Comprehensive Plan, which can be viewed as the "road map" for implementing the Vision Plan:

Quote
The Henderson City-County Planning Commission is going to do a little crystal-gazing Sept. 14, and would like the public’s assistance in laying the foundation for future land-use decisions.
The event, which will begin at 5 p.m. Sept. 14 in the top-floor meeting room of the Henderson Municipal Center, is a combination workshop and open house about the proposed city-county Comprehensive Plan’s map, which the Planning Commission is in the process of updating ....
“It’s important, and the public should have lots of input,” said city-county Planner Brian Bishop, noting the Comprehensive Plan will dovetail into the Vision Plan adopted earlier by the city of Henderson.
“The Vision Plan sets the destination. I like to think the Comprehensive Plan is the road map to help get us there.”

TSW Design Group of Louisville drafted the Vision Plan, with considerable public input, and is also drafting the rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan, so it will have representatives at the Sept. 14 workshop.

The article also suggests that I-69's route around Henderson should be finalized in 2016:

Quote
Most of the questions at the Sept. 14 workshop will probably be about specific parcels of property and the route of Interstate 69, Bishop said. But since the I-69 route has not yet been finalized, there’s not much definitive information that can be relayed.
In fact, a separate chapter of the Comprehensive Plan has been reserved for use in 2016 once the actual I-69 route is known.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 08, 2015, 05:17:58 PM
I really don't think tolls would fund the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, at least in the foreseeable future. There won't be enough of a traffic increase at the onset, so most locals will just continue to use the US 41 bridge instead.
This may be the real irony here—northbound traffic going into most of Evansville would be going out of their way to stay on an easterly-alignment 69.  Traffic would end up somewhat lighter on 41, so it might be a more attractive route.  This is where missing ramp movements to coerce toll payment (a la Garden State Parkway, Mass Pike Extension) come in handy, but that'd be shitty.

This TV video (http://www.14news.com/story/29983408/leaders-discuss-future-of-i-69-bridge) reports on a Sept. 8 meeting in Evansville about the future of the I-69 Ohio River bridge, during which it appears that the participants want to keep the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges as a free option for local traffic and have the burden of possible tolls for the I-69 bridge fall primarily on truck through traffic:

Quote
A meeting was held in downtown Evansville on Tuesday to discuss the future of the new I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.
A big point of discussion was keeping the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges open for people who live in the area.
The new bridge would connect the I-69 portions of Indiana and Kentucky ....
INDOT is performing a study to see if tolls on the bridge would support the cost.
"The key about the Twin Bridges is…it gives us a free, local route for people in Evansville and Henderson,” said Brad Schneider with KYNDLE.
“It will be through traffic, commercial traffic - those folks will be paying the bulk of the tolls.
  I guess local people could use the new bridge for convenience but maintaining a free local route is key to our plans.”
The path of the new I-69 bridge would start near Weinbach Avenue in Evansville and loop around Audubon State Park in Henderson.

The INDOT toll study should make for some interesting reading .......

edit

This article about the meeting (http://www.courierpress.com/news/facing-our-future/should-indiana-and-kentucky-raise-taxes-for-i69-bridge_88074694) emphasizes the possibility of raising gas and diesel taxes to help pay for the bridge:

Quote
... if we’re going to do something about preservation, maintenance and building the new, needed infrastructure, like the bridge over the Ohio River to complete I-69 … we’re going to have to do something about a severe INDOT (Indiana Department of Transportation) funding shortfall and it’s going to take some tough decisions,” said Dennis Faulkenberg, president and chief executive officer of APPIAN ....
The key question for the region discussed by the panel at the Rotary lunch was: How to fund the $850 million connection between Kentucky and Indiana?
Tolls, gas and diesel taxes and other fees could help fund that, Faulkenberg said.

He pointed out that diesel taxes in Indiana haven’t increased since 1989, and inflation over the last 25 years has diminished the power of the dollars collected.
While bridging gaps in state funding is crucial, Laurie Maudline, also with APPIAN, said federal funding is “absolutely critical.”
Federal gas and diesel taxes haven’t been increased since 1993, Maudline said.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 06:01:14 PM
Interesting, so the northern end is no longer at Green River but at Weinbach.  Shorter route, makes more sense, but now it's right there at the 41 bridges, making them that much more attractive. 

I suppose they could eliminate the exit from the stub end of 164 (whatever it will be called) southbound to 41 South to discourage through traffic that way, but that would really complicate a lot of folks' route into Henderson.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on September 08, 2015, 06:11:52 PM
Interesting, so the northern end is no longer at Green River but at Weinbach.  Shorter route, makes more sense, but now it's right there at the 41 bridges, making them that much more attractive. 

I suppose they could eliminate the exit from the stub end of 164 (whatever it will be called) southbound to 41 South to discourage through traffic that way, but that would really complicate a lot of folks' route into Henderson.

If it splits at Weinbach, then I'd say the stub would just be an exit ramp and not signed as anything but whatever exit # us 41 is (probably 0)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 15, 2015, 01:21:07 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/workshop-will-help-guild-henderson-land-use_25731976) reports that, with the Vision Plan in place, Henderson is now working on the Comprehensive Plan, which can be viewed as the "road map" for implementing the Vision Plan:
Quote
The Henderson City-County Planning Commission is going to do a little crystal-gazing Sept. 14, and would like the public’s assistance in laying the foundation for future land-use decisions.
.... The article also suggests that I-69's route around Henderson should be finalized in 2016
This TV video (http://www.14news.com/story/29983408/leaders-discuss-future-of-i-69-bridge)
Interesting, so the northern end is no longer at Green River but at Weinbach.  Shorter route, makes more sense, but now it's right there at the 41 bridges, making them that much more attractive.

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/gl_comp-plan_34933682) reports that that the final route will not be known for at least two to three years because the updated Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") process has not started:

Quote
The Henderson City-County Planning Commission’s future land use map shows large areas of the western part of the county being used for parks and recreation. But what it doesn’t yet show is where Interstate 69 is going to cross the Ohio River.
Monday’s workshop by the Planning Commission largely focused on Interstate 69, but the upshot was to discuss it further at the Oct. 6 meeting ....
“Nothing we do here actually changes the zoning,” said Amy Williams, the consultant helping draft an updated Comprehensive Plan, of which the map is a part. But she noted the future land use map will come into play if a rezoning is requested.
“If you ask for a rezoning, that’s what it ought to be rezoned to.”
She quickly moved on to I-69. “The chapter on I-69 won’t be done until 2016,” she said. “We’re waiting on the assigned route,” said city-county Planner Brian Bishop.
“It won’t be next year because the updated environmental impact statement won’t even be started,” said Brad Schneider, president and CEO of Kyndle. “It might take two or three years to determine this route.”
The route earlier suggested by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet would split off the Pennyrile Parkway, cross Kentucky 351 between Graham Hill and Zion, cross U.S. 60 between Pleasantview and Broadview subdivisions, and cross the Ohio River downstream of the Green River.
An organization called BridgeLink has come up with a much cheaper alternative. “It goes around the east side of town, but it cuts a much closer path to town and intersects with the existing roadway much sooner,” said Schneider.

The question the Planning Commission wrestled with was which route to place on the future land use map.
“I’m just leery of the Planning Commission making decisions on rezonings … based on an estimated route,” Bishop said.
“I wouldn’t base your land uses on that right now,” Williams said.

It seems like they would be better served by starting the EIS process now and developing the Comprehensive Plan after the final route has been determined.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 15, 2015, 07:54:39 PM
Here is a snip of the map of BridgeLink's suggested alternative from the article:
(http://i.imgur.com/1YMqwHf.jpg)

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/gl_comp-plan_34933682) reports that that the final route will not be known for at least two to three years because the updated Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") process has not started:
Quote
“We’re waiting on the assigned route,” said city-county Planner Brian Bishop.
“It won’t be next year because the updated environmental impact statement won’t even be started,” said Brad Schneider, president and CEO of Kyndle. “It might take two or three years to determine this route.” ....
An organization called BridgeLink has come up with a much cheaper alternative. “It goes around the east side of town, but it cuts a much closer path to town and intersects with the existing roadway much sooner,” said Schneider.

I recently looked at the Proposed I-69 Route Page at hendersonplanning.org (http://hendersonplanning.org/gis-maps/proposed-i-69-route) and noticed that it has a link to a January, 2014 I-69 SIU 4 in Henderson County Feasibility Study (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20SIU%204_FEASIBILITY%20STUDY_FINAL.pdf) that KYTC prepared. The above map, which presents the alternative favored by BridgeLink, came from that study (p. 66/82 of pdf; p. 47 of document).  BridgeLink's favored alternative is known as Alternative 1a and here is a snip from another map of it (p. 51/82 of pdf; p. 32 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/DHwY38N.jpg)

Some light reading for anyone who is interested, even though it is not the requisite environmental study.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 16, 2015, 09:11:37 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.
Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.
Which is why they should be used for I-69.
This TV video (http://www.14news.com/story/29983408/leaders-discuss-future-of-i-69-bridge) reports on a Sept. 8 meeting in Evansville about the future of the I-69 Ohio River bridge, during which it appears that the participants want to keep the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges as a free option for local traffic and have the burden of possible tolls for the I-69 bridge fall primarily on truck through traffic
a January, 2014 I-69 SIU 4 in Henderson County Feasibility Study (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20SIU%204_FEASIBILITY%20STUDY_FINAL.pdf) that KYTC prepared .... BridgeLink's favored alternative is known as Alternative 1a .

An interesting aspect of the January, 2014 Feasibility Study is that all of the alternatives except for Alternative 1a would involve closing the Twin Bridges and building a new bridge (p. 18/82 of pdf; p. ES11 of document):

Quote
In this Feasibility Study, seven alternatives and some variations were examined at the concept level. All but one of these alternatives (1a) would close the existing US 41 twin bridges over the Ohio River northeast of Henderson and construct a new bridge.

The goals of the Feasibility Study were identified as follows (p. 21/82 of pdf; p. 2 of document):

Quote
The following goals were identified for the project Feasibility Study:
* Provide for a single river crossing for US 41 and I-69.
* Shorten the project from its original concept so that as much of the existing Breathitt Parkway and US 41 are used for the future I-69 as possible.
* Provide access from I-69 to the businesses along US 41.

After looking at the comments from the September 8 Evansville meeting and seeing BridgeLink's favored alternative, it seems like the notion of closing the Twin Bridges and having a single crossing I-69 bridge is a non-starter for most people.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 28, 2016, 12:41:12 PM
This was great news to hear.  Kentucky Governor Bevin both confirmed his commitment to I-69 and specifically announced during his first State of the Commonwealth speech his intention to dedicate millions of dollars towards accelerating Kentucky's portion of the new I-69 bridge and roadway over the Ohio River.
http://www.thegleaner.com/news/bevin-road-plan-includes-millions-in-new-money-for-i-69-bridge-project-2a53b7b1-f655-3c52-e053-01000-366760241.html
Quote
On Wednesday, the state released hard copies of the proposed road plan. As BridgeLink requested, the money for the environmental study was moved forward to 2017.
The plan calls for $2.82 million to be allocated in 2017 for the environmental study but then goes on to call for $41 million for the project, spread out over three years, starting in 2019, to "develop alignment for Interstate 69 Henderson/Evansville Ohio River crossing."
The project would receive $6 million in 2019, $20 million in 2020 and $15 million in 2021 for preconstruction work.
"That's all new money (for the project),"
This is great news!  Now if Indiana can step up its share of the project, we may see I-69 between Indiana and Kentucky a reality much sooner.
(above quote from I-69 in KY (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg2123036#msg2123036) thread)

Great news indeed!  Here is a snip from the Projects List of the 2016 Recommended Highway Plan (p. 51/119 of pdf) (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Documents/2016RecommendedProjectListing.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/EVq5Q5g.png)



This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020, and Winnecke says a new study supports a reduced cost estimate of $800 million to build the bridge:
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke says the I-69 bridge could be a lot cheaper than first projected.
Mayor Winnecke says a new study shows the bridge could cost about $800 million.
That's $600 million less than first thought.
Winnecke says this new estimate is partly based on the savings seen in St. Louis with the I-70 bridge.
"The 2008 estimate of $1.4 billion we believe is high," said Mayor Winnecke. "Now with what we've witnessed in St. Louis we really believe it's high, and so we have folks working to narrow to a more refined scope."
Mayor Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin hope to have the bridge built by the year 2020. Both expect it to be a toll bridge. However, a price to cross the bridge hasn't been revealed.

The above article linked by EngineerTM reports that Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still expects tolls to pay approximately fifty percent of the bridge's cost:

Quote
Henderson Mayor Steve Austin ....
said the money in the road plan was exciting news.
"Nothing can happen can happen until the environmental impact study is complete, so getting that will really put things on fast track," he said. "I think tolls will pay for about 50 percent (of the bridge's cost) so we'll need help from the state and federal governments, but getting that environmental study moved up is certainly important."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 29, 2016, 12:04:38 PM
the Executive Summary of the 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I-69 between Evansville and Henderson (http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/executive%20summary.pdf). Here is a map of the Alternatives that were considered (page 13/23 of pdf; page S-13 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/h8WNT.jpg)
Alternative 2 was identified as the Preferred Alternative (page 23/23 of pdf; page S-23 of document)
Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx
a January, 2014 I-69 SIU 4 in Henderson County Feasibility Study (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20SIU%204_FEASIBILITY%20STUDY_FINAL.pdf) that KYTC prepared ... BridgeLink's favored alternative is known as Alternative 1a and here is a snip from another map of it (p. 51/82 of pdf; p. 32 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/DHwY38N.jpg)
This was great news to hear.  Kentucky Governor Bevin both confirmed his commitment to I-69 and specifically announced during his first State of the Commonwealth speech his intention to dedicate millions of dollars towards accelerating Kentucky's portion of the new I-69 bridge and roadway over the Ohio River.
http://www.thegleaner.com/news/bevin-road-plan-includes-millions-in-new-money-for-i-69-bridge-project-2a53b7b1-f655-3c52-e053-01000-366760241.html
Quote
On Wednesday, the state released hard copies of the proposed road plan. As BridgeLink requested, the money for the environmental study was moved forward to 2017.
(above quote from I-69 in KY (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg2123036#msg2123036) thread)

This January 28 article (http://www.thegleaner.com/news/schneider-gives-update-on-kyndle--2a2eabeb-ae1b-79b9-e053-0100007f7872-366903111.html) reports on Kyndle CEO Brad Schneider's belief that the environmental study will focus on the above two corridors:

Quote
Kyndle CEO Brad Schneider tuned into Gov. Matt Bevin's State of the Commonwealth address Tuesday because he heard the governor might mention I-69 ....
The governor bumped up the environmental impact study on the bridge from 2018 to 2017.
He also added $300,000 to the project and added $41 million for pre-construction work in years 2019-21.
Schneider thinks this signals that Bevin is going to update the environmental impact study on the old route, examine the new route and do a total revenue study that will jibe with the one done in Indiana last fall.
"That is great progress," he said. "That is a commitment and I don't think they are going to back off." ....
Schneider said he's frequently asked about where the new bridge will be built. There is not a firm answer, but Kentucky is considering two primary corridors.
A route identified in 2004 swings well east of Henderson, crosses U.S. 60, Kentucky 351 and the Audubon Parkway before hooking up at the Pennyrile Parkway just south of the Kentucky 425 bypass.
A second route
was identified a few years ago and was backed by BridgeLink — a nonprofit advocacy group that is pushing for the bridge to be built by 2020. It's a less expensive option and requires less new roadway, Schneider said.
This route heads east of existing twin bridges and Ellis Park, crosses east of Audubon Park, cuts around the Braxton Park subdivision, crosses U.S. 60, then heads along the railroad line right to the U.S. 41 bypass.
"It's basically hitting right in between the Cloverleaf and the Zion Road exit," he said.

It will be interesting to see whether KYTC will be required to study additional corridors as part of the environmental process, or, in the alternative, whether information gleaned from the 2004 DEIS and the 2014 SIU 4 Henderson County Feasibility Study will allow KYTC to immediately focus on the above two corridors.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 30, 2016, 09:16:44 AM
A while back I sent the Henderson mayor and idea that involved using the US 41 bridges. I sent this before the BridgeLinks Alt 1 came out. They may have actually used part of my idea. Here is what I sent them.

https://www.scribblemaps.com/create/#id=P_kuh1y__g&lat=37.88232700812191&lng=-87.62328368840485&z=12&t=hybrid
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 30, 2016, 08:02:30 PM
why the hell would indiana go for a new terrain route?  how in the world would that be cost effective at all?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on January 31, 2016, 06:35:38 AM
There's no way they'll use the existing bridges. They're too old and need too much work ... and you don't add any capacity that's really needed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SteveG1988 on February 02, 2016, 03:03:42 AM
There's no way they'll use the existing bridges. They're too old and need too much work ... and you don't add any capacity that's really needed.

Those bridges should be left as-is for local traffic, Allow 69 to just bypass both towns with that becoming 69BL.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 02, 2016, 07:27:23 AM
I don't think they were ever going to use the old bridges, they need to be replaced themselves.
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2016, 01:22:12 PM
I don't think they were ever going to use the old bridges, they need to be replaced themselves.

The current ROW through Henderson would have to be rendered limited-access.  This ROW is lined with businesses.  I don't know if you've been to downtown Henderson, but it's not exactly a boomtown, and the 41 strip represents a big part of the city's retail sector (and tax base).  It would have potentially severe long-term negative impacts to Henderson to obliterate that, essentially asking the people of Henderson to pay a tremendously higher cost than anyone else for the new bridge.

As for how Indiana would go for a new-terrain route, very little of the route will be in Indiana either way.  The state line is well north of the river.  Few Indianans will be severely inconvenienced beyond having to pay for the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 02, 2016, 01:24:14 PM

I don't think they were ever going to use the old bridges, they need to be replaced themselves.

The current ROW through Henderson would have to be rendered limited-access.  This ROW is lined with businesses.  I don't know if you've been to downtown Henderson, but it's not exactly a boomtown, and the 41 strip represents a big part of the city's retail sector (and tax base).  It would have potentially severe long-term negative impacts to Henderson to obliterate that, essentially asking the people of Henderson to pay a tremendously higher cost than anyone else for the new bridge.

I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying that the current 41 bridges need to be replaced, and 69 should bypass the city to the east, the 2 western bypass ideas are crazy (from Indiana's prospective)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2016, 02:14:20 PM


I don't think they were ever going to use the old bridges, they need to be replaced themselves.

The current ROW through Henderson would have to be rendered limited-access.  This ROW is lined with businesses.  I don't know if you've been to downtown Henderson, but it's not exactly a boomtown, and the 41 strip represents a big part of the city's retail sector (and tax base).  It would have potentially severe long-term negative impacts to Henderson to obliterate that, essentially asking the people of Henderson to pay a tremendously higher cost than anyone else for the new bridge.

I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying that the current 41 bridges need to be replaced, and 69 should bypass the city to the east, the 2 western bypass ideas are crazy (from Indiana's prospective)

Oh, I don't think the western bypass ideas have been seriously considered in a long time. All the current proposals I've heard taken seriously in the past couple of years have involved bypassing the 41 strip to the east and a new interchange on the former 164 someplace between 41 and S. Green River Rd.

The most elegant alignment runs directly south from the bend in the former 164. But this also involves a lot more right-of-way to be constructed new, and that is understandably not ideal.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on February 02, 2016, 05:40:53 PM
It's actually too bad they can' t use the alignment where the bridges are now and just to a rebuild, but it would be cost prohibitive, and a complete nightmare diverting traffic to a temporary crossing, which again would be cost prohibitive.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2016, 06:54:24 PM
I'm curious what kind of interchange will be built in Evansville.  Even if existing 41 were used, a full reconstruction of the current 41/69 interchange would have to happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 02, 2016, 07:53:51 PM
A little update on the potential I-369 spur route (Audubon Parkway to Owensboro)
http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/77-owensboro-news/34218-owensboro-city-commission-hears-from-transportation-cabinet
No number for this road has been assigned. 169 makes more sense than 369
The I-69 Spur page (http://gotransportation.net/highway_plans_&_projects/i-69_spur.php) on the Greater Owensboro Chamber of Commerce website projects a preference for I-169:
(http://i.imgur.com/QY1vW1U.png)
I thought it was going to be called i-369, I think I even saw it signed on google maps too
(above quote from I-69 in KY (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg264276;topicseen#msg264276) thread)
Just noticed today that the Route Log and Finder list was updated on January 27, 2016. There is a new URL as well at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/index.cfm
(above quote from Updated FHWA Interstate Route Log As Of Dec. 31, 2015 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17389.msg2124087#msg2124087) thread)
I'm curious what kind of interchange will be built in Evansville.  Even if existing 41 were used, a full reconstruction of the current 41/69 interchange would have to happen.

FHWA still has 21.24 miles of I-164 on the books, even though it has been redesignated as I-69. Assuming existing 41 is not used, I-69's new routing to the east will leave a remnant of the old I-164 as part of the interchange. Since that remnant would then connect to I-69 instead of I-64, would it need to redesignated as an I-x69 instead of defaulting back to the I-164 designation?  If so, would FHWA require that it be a different number than Kentucky's future I-x69 designation for the Audubon Parkway in order to avoid confusion to the traveling public, even though the two routes, although close in proximity, are in different states?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2016, 08:24:25 PM
There's a good chance the Evansville stub will be so short there will be no need to number the scant bit before Veterans Parkway begins.  If it's an unsigned number, it can be I-238 for all anyone is concerned.

But that aside, you do realize that what the Owensboro Chamber has on that shield is "I69," not "169," right? 

I don't think it matters what number the x69 to Owensboro might be (so long as it is different than anything as close as the Evansville stub, should that get a number), but given the way Owensboro's mayor fought all reason in order to get I-69 moved there a year or two ago, I wouldn't be too surprised to see someone there go ballistic to get the number they want, too.  Which is a little nuts, if you ask me, because this is a city with a two-room airport we're talking about.  Moonlite BBQ or no, Owensboro shouldn't carry enough weight to be calling the shots.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on February 02, 2016, 08:39:26 PM
As for how Indiana would go for a new-terrain route, very little of the route will be in Indiana either way.  The state line is well north of the river.  Few Indianans will be severely inconvenienced beyond having to pay for the bridge.
The map posted above has two alternatives to the west that both dwarf I-164 in length.
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2016, 08:44:46 PM
As for how Indiana would go for a new-terrain route, very little of the route will be in Indiana either way.  The state line is well north of the river.  Few Indianans will be severely inconvenienced beyond having to pay for the bridge.
The map posted above has two alternatives to the west that both dwarf I-164 in length.

That map above with a November, 2002 date above the legend, that is.  There has been no recent public consideration of those alignments.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on February 03, 2016, 08:11:57 AM
Moonlite BBQ or no, Owensboro shouldn't carry enough weight to be calling the shots.

Out of curiosity, were you from the region? Because... Moonlite BBQ is just amazing. Owensboro is one of my favorite Kentucky towns to visit for the food (from the state, originally).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rothman on February 03, 2016, 08:58:28 AM
Moonlite BBQ or no, Owensboro shouldn't carry enough weight to be calling the shots.

Out of curiosity, were you from the region? Because... Moonlite BBQ is just amazing. Owensboro is one of my favorite Kentucky towns to visit for the food (from the state, originally).

Wish I had known that before going through there a couple of years ago.  Looked like the place was hurting quite badly when I was there.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 03, 2016, 10:10:03 AM

Moonlite BBQ or no, Owensboro shouldn't carry enough weight to be calling the shots.

Out of curiosity, were you from the region? Because... Moonlite BBQ is just amazing. Owensboro is one of my favorite Kentucky towns to visit for the food (from the state, originally).

No, I just visit folks in the region.  Stopped at Moonlite when catching a flight out recently.  I still have dreams about the mutton.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 03, 2016, 10:38:10 PM
Moonlite is for tourists. The locals prefer another BBQ joint in Owensboro, the name of which escapes me at the moment.
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2016, 12:12:02 AM
Moonlite is for tourists. The locals prefer another BBQ joint in Owensboro, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

If that's true, then judging by the dozen or more delivery vans at Moonlite, Owensboro must be absolutely drowning in tourists getting service at their hotels.

In any case, I was a satisfied tourist.  The locals at the buffet, when they found out I was new there, gave me a hearty welcome and good advice.  It was great.

The other place must not be downtown.  On a weekday afternoon, an astounding number of businesses were closed.  For all Owensboro's talk ("Move 69 here," "Give us an x69," "Our riverfront and convention center and budget airport will knock your socks off") I was a little disappointed how little its potential-filled city center delivers.  Moonlite is the most worthwhile place I've been there. 

There is a pretty neat arty coffee shop downtown, though I feel like the patrons must vanish into the air once they walk out its doors.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 04, 2016, 12:42:52 AM
Moonlite is for tourists. The locals prefer another BBQ joint in Owensboro, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

My guess is you are thinking of Old Hickory.

On a side note, the bad blood between Evansville and Owensboro, particularly Mayor Ron has began to boil quite a bit harder. Evansville was in a tough lease negotiation with its minor league hockey team when Mayor Ron appeared out of nowhere and gave the hockey team owner, Ron Geary, the Owensboro Sportscenter. A few stips, primarily Geary has to put $6 mil into renovating it, but the arena is basically his. On the surface it seems ridiculous for a hockey team to leave a larger market with a 5 year old state of the art arena, for Owensboro and a 70 year old dump that isn't even large enough in its current state to hold hockey..but...Geary, who also owns Ellis Park, gets a new OTB parlor in Owensboro as well.

Of course, this has sent Winnecke and the city of Evansville in full batcrap mode. They are publicly working feverishly to secure a new hockey team for the Ford Center. I have a friend who works at the Evansville Airport, and he has heard that Winnecke has asked the Airport Board to make every attempt possible to lure Allegant Airlines from Owensboro to Evansville. EVV currently has three commercial airlines, American, Delta and United, while Allegant is the only commercial carrier in OWB. Allegant already markets this as (Evansville). Losing Allegant would be a huge blow to OWB.

It's really sad that these cities can't work together for the common good of the region, as Evansville and Henderson appear to do. However, Mayor Ron seems to be incapable of that, as seen with his rather moronic attempt to relocate an already completed I-69 away from Evansville.

Regardless, things should be interesting in this region for awhile.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 04, 2016, 07:14:08 AM
Moonlite is for tourists. The locals prefer another BBQ joint in Owensboro, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

My guess is you are thinking of Old Hickory.

On a side note, the bad blood between Evansville and Owensboro, particularly Mayor Ron has began to boil quite a bit harder. Evansville was in a tough lease negotiation with its minor league hockey team when Mayor Ron appeared out of nowhere and gave the hockey team owner, Ron Geary, the Owensboro Sportscenter. A few stips, primarily Geary has to put $6 mil into renovating it, but the arena is basically his. On the surface it seems ridiculous for a hockey team to leave a larger market with a 5 year old state of the art arena, for Owensboro and a 70 year old dump that isn't even large enough in its current state to hold hockey..but...Geary, who also owns Ellis Park, gets a new OTB parlor in Owensboro as well.

Of course, this has sent Winnecke and the city of Evansville in full batcrap mode. They are publicly working feverishly to secure a new hockey team for the Ford Center. I have a friend who works at the Evansville Airport, and he has heard that Winnecke has asked the Airport Board to make every attempt possible to lure Allegant Airlines from Owensboro to Evansville. EVV currently has three commercial airlines, American, Delta and United, while Allegant is the only commercial carrier in OWB. Allegant already markets this as (Evansville). Losing Allegant would be a huge blow to OWB.

It's really sad that these cities can't work together for the common good of the region, as Evansville and Henderson appear to do. However, Mayor Ron seems to be incapable of that, as seen with his rather moronic attempt to relocate an already completed I-69 away from Evansville.

Regardless, things should be interesting in this region for awhile.

is this why evansville currently has 2 hockey teams?  is one leaving now?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on February 04, 2016, 07:20:25 AM
If I were planning the connection with the existing I-69 in Indiana to the Kentucky I-69, I would go as planned from about the 2 mile marker from I-69 in Indiana to the new terrain bridge as planned with the modified plan to bring the new road back into the Pennyrile near what was exit 79.  I would then route US 41 from its route through Evansville onto what was I-164 and duplex it and I-69 across the Ohio River on the toll bridge.  The existing bridges could be changed to an extended Alt US 41.  Matter of fact, the older of the two bridges could be decommissioned as carrying traffic, and be prepared for pedestrian traffic to tie into the long walking/biking trails that are becoming a part of Evansville/Newburgh IN.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 04, 2016, 10:51:33 AM
I live in Terre Haute and I had no idea that you could fly in and out of Evansville and Owensboro. I guess it makes sense though. Apparently you can fly to Orlando and St. Louis from Owensboro; and to Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, and Detroit from Evansville. I didn't know that so many people flew. I do know that Terre Haute has been trying to get airlines to come to our airport for a long time. We used to have flights I guess. We almost got Branson a few years ago, but it never happened for some reason. In all honesty Terre Haute is too close to Indianapolis Int'l for it to ever happen. I think people are obsessed with getting airlines to come to Terre Haute just because the airport is called Terre Haute Int'l Airport.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 04, 2016, 04:59:32 PM
That name Ron Geary sounds awfully familiar.

ADDENDUM -- Yep. He was secretary of the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet under Gov. John Y. Brown (1979-83).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Georgia on February 05, 2016, 05:00:18 PM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

Allegiant flies out of KOWB I believe 3 days a week, so it is hardly regular service but it is quite handy for people in the Owensboro area if they want to save a hour driving to Evansville's airport on the other side of town from them.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: kkt on February 05, 2016, 05:22:56 PM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

San Jose, California's, airport called itself "Norman Mineta International" when there were NO scheduled flights to any other countries.  Many Bay Area residents started calling it "Mineta Intergalactic," because it was just as intergalactic as it was international.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 06, 2016, 08:52:06 AM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

Allegiant flies out of KOWB I believe 3 days a week, so it is hardly regular service but it is quite handy for people in the Owensboro area if they want to save a hour driving to Evansville's airport on the other side of town from them.

Cape Air also flies out of Owensboro to St. Louis; that service is daily.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 06, 2016, 11:12:24 AM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

Allegiant flies out of KOWB I believe 3 days a week, so it is hardly regular service but it is quite handy for people in the Owensboro area if they want to save a hour driving to Evansville's airport on the other side of town from them.

Cape Air also flies out of Owensboro to St. Louis; that service is daily.

all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

Allegiant flies out of KOWB I believe 3 days a week, so it is hardly regular service but it is quite handy for people in the Owensboro area if they want to save a hour driving to Evansville's airport on the other side of town from them.

Cape Air also flies out of Owensboro to St. Louis; that service is daily.

This has gotten way off track, but I would assume the Cape Air flights are on Cessna 402 aircraft that carry 8 or 9 passenges so I doubt that would be something worth going after. Not only that, but that is a pretty short distance for air travel - especially when I-64 connects directly to St. Louis. Indy airport hasn't had flights to St. Louis in years since St. Louis lost its hub status.
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 06, 2016, 11:21:13 AM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

Allegiant flies out of KOWB I believe 3 days a week, so it is hardly regular service but it is quite handy for people in the Owensboro area if they want to save a hour driving to Evansville's airport on the other side of town from them.

Cape Air also flies out of Owensboro to St. Louis; that service is daily.

This has gotten way off track, but I would assume the Cape Air flights are on Cessna 402 aircraft that carry 8 or 9 passenges so I doubt that would be something worth going after. Not only that, but that is a pretty short distance for air travel - especially when I-64 connects directly to St. Louis. Indy airport hasn't had flights to St. Louis in years since St. Louis lost its hub status.

They are Cessnas.  It is about a 90-minute flight, and the time I took it, it saved me $200 over flying out of Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 06, 2016, 09:15:59 PM
interesting that you can't fly to indy, yes it's close by flying standards, but i still find it interesting.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on February 06, 2016, 10:00:44 PM
I know USAir used to fly IND-EVV, because I've taken that flight, a long time ago.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 07, 2016, 06:47:26 AM
I know USAir used to fly IND-EVV, because I've taken that flight, a long time ago.

Not true anymore. No flights from IND to Cincy, St. Louis, or Cleveland either. The only short range ones now are to ORD - even SWA to Midway is no more. The flights to DTW seem to all be the small CRJs as Delta flies all big planes to ATL (including some 757s). MSP flights seem to be using regional jets more as well. In addition to the flights from IND to the major hubs, there are more non-stops to distant destinations like Las Vegas, San Francisco, Miami, LAX, and most of the big east coast and Florida cities, however.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 07, 2016, 07:17:16 PM
Why would anyone want to fly from Indy to Cincinnati or St. Louis? By the time you get to the airport, park, go through TSA theater, etc., you could drive to either city.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 07, 2016, 07:47:47 PM
Cincinnati was a Delta hub and St. Louis was a TWA/AA hub. Otherwise, no, you would not.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on February 07, 2016, 09:38:28 PM
USAir had a focus city at IND in the late 80's. Just like CVG, but on a smaller scale.. Days of past..
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 07, 2016, 11:07:04 PM
Why would anyone want to fly from Indy to Cincinnati or St. Louis? By the time you get to the airport, park, go through TSA theater, etc., you could drive to either city.

I feel guilty for having nothing to say about the proposed I-69 bridge over the Ohio River, but I remember flying from Indy to Cincy back in 2009...to go to Las Vegas. Though I understand it no longer being possible. So yeah....that bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 07, 2016, 11:26:31 PM
Why would anyone want to fly from Indy to Cincinnati or St. Louis? By the time you get to the airport, park, go through TSA theater, etc., you could drive to either city.

I feel guilty for having nothing to say about the proposed I-69 bridge over the Ohio River, but I remember flying from Indy to Cincy back in 2009...to go to Las Vegas. Though I understand it no longer being possible. So yeah....that bridge.

When Terre Haute had flights back in the day I think they all went to Chicago.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on February 08, 2016, 11:00:16 AM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

San Jose, California's, airport called itself "Norman Mineta International" when there were NO scheduled flights to any other countries.  Many Bay Area residents started calling it "Mineta Intergalactic," because it was just as intergalactic as it was international.

My local airport (Appleton, WI - ATW) recently added a USCustoms office along with the 'international' moniker, too, done so to make life easier for the airport's major non-passenger related tenant, that being Gulfstream (the upper-end private airplane builder).  Now, their customers don't have to clear customs elsewhere when flying their airplanes in for service from outside of the USA.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rothman on February 08, 2016, 11:07:34 AM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

San Jose, California's, airport called itself "Norman Mineta International" when there were NO scheduled flights to any other countries.  Many Bay Area residents started calling it "Mineta Intergalactic," because it was just as intergalactic as it was international.

My local airport (Appleton, WI - ATW) recently added a USCustoms office along with the 'international' moniker, too, done so to make life easier for the airport's major non-passenger related tenant, that being Gulfstream (the upper-end private airplane builder).  Now, their customers don't have to clear customs elsewhere when flying their airplanes in for service from outside of the USA.

Mike

MacArthur Airport on Long Island's probably going this route as well.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 10, 2016, 12:24:57 PM
Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 10, 2016, 05:19:18 PM
Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge
We can see a time not too far off when I-69 will be complete in both Indiana and Kentucky, except for the bridge. Obvious gaps have a way of attracting attention!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 10, 2016, 06:02:52 PM

Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge

The one comment on that article cracks me up.  It urges Winnecke and Indiana to abandon the whole thing to Kentucky, saying "As far as Hoosiers are concerned, I-69 ends at the I-69/41 interchange."  Nice to speak for the whole state. 

The bridge will indeed be entirely within Kentucky, since sediment accretion on the inside of the river bend has shifted the river well south of where it was when the border was drawn, but not in a million years could I see that leading to Kentucky taking full ownership of the bridge cost (nor Indiana expecting it to).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 10, 2016, 07:10:24 PM
Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge
We can see a time not too far off when I-69 will be complete in both Indiana and Kentucky, except for the bridge. Obvious gaps have a way of attracting attention!


What's changed now is that with I-69 connected to SR-37 (and Indianapolis/I-69N) in Indiana and the Parkways being signed as I-69 in Kentucky, has introduced a forcing function to get the Ohio River Bridge done.  That forcing function of course being all of the traffic that is (or soon will be) generated by the completed sections of the route that will have no other option but to use the outdated US-41 bridges over the river. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on February 10, 2016, 09:06:08 PM
The bridge will indeed be entirely within Kentucky, since sediment accretion on the inside of the river bend has shifted the river well south of where it was when the border was drawn, but not in a million years could I see that leading to Kentucky taking full ownership of the bridge cost (nor Indiana expecting it to).
Isn't the preferred alternative to build new bridges far enough east of the existing US 41 bridges that the border would be back on the north shore of the river?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 10, 2016, 09:56:56 PM

The bridge will indeed be entirely within Kentucky, since sediment accretion on the inside of the river bend has shifted the river well south of where it was when the border was drawn, but not in a million years could I see that leading to Kentucky taking full ownership of the bridge cost (nor Indiana expecting it to).
Isn't the preferred alternative to build new bridges far enough east of the existing US 41 bridges that the border would be back on the north shore of the river?

The diagrams posted in this thread show the crossing to be about at this location, (https://goo.gl/maps/3S4vK4dMHwx) so, no, not quite.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 11, 2016, 08:46:55 AM
Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge
We can see a time not too far off when I-69 will be complete in both Indiana and Kentucky, except for the bridge. Obvious gaps have a way of attracting attention!


What's changed now is that with I-69 connected to SR-37 (and Indianapolis/I-69N) in Indiana and the Parkways being signed as I-69 in Kentucky, has introduced a forcing function to get the Ohio River Bridge done.  That forcing function of course being all of the traffic that is (or soon will be) generated by the completed sections of the route that will have no other option but to use the outdated US-41 bridges over the river. 

I don't imagine traffic will increase on I-69 south of Evansville for quite some time, at least until it is complete to Memphis. However, maybe traffic would increase if motorists utilize I-69 to US 51 to I-155 to I-55 to reach Memphis, since most of US 51 between Fulton and Dyersburg is already interstate standard.

Either way, I think the political pressure will increase to close the gap since I-69 bumps up against it from both directions, and you can then say that I-69 is complete from Kentucky to Canada.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 11, 2016, 10:25:14 AM
Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge
We can see a time not too far off when I-69 will be complete in both Indiana and Kentucky, except for the bridge. Obvious gaps have a way of attracting attention!


What's changed now is that with I-69 connected to SR-37 (and Indianapolis/I-69N) in Indiana and the Parkways being signed as I-69 in Kentucky, has introduced a forcing function to get the Ohio River Bridge done.  That forcing function of course being all of the traffic that is (or soon will be) generated by the completed sections of the route that will have no other option but to use the outdated US-41 bridges over the river. 

I don't imagine traffic will increase on I-69 south of Evansville for quite some time, at least until it is complete to Memphis. However, maybe traffic would increase if motorists utilize I-69 to US 51 to I-155 to I-55 to reach Memphis, since most of US 51 between Fulton and Dyersburg is already interstate standard.

Either way, I think the political pressure will increase to close the gap since I-69 bumps up against it from both directions, and you can then say that I-69 is complete from Kentucky to Canada.

With increased traffic on the US-41 bridges, the deterioration of those bridges will accelerate, which will add to the sense of urgency to get the I-69 bridge funded and built.  It's either that, or pay almost the same amount to overhaul or replace the US-41 bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on February 11, 2016, 10:34:40 AM
One bridge is 80 or so years old and although it is in good condition now, it will need either rehabilitation or replacement by the time construction nears for Interstate 69. The other is 50 or so years old and is also in good condition, but it will need rehabilitation in 10 to 20 years. Isn't the goal of an Interstate 69 bypass to keep the newer US 41 bridge in service for local traffic - and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 11, 2016, 11:11:23 AM
and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?

?

This is not even in the broad 2002 map of possibilities, nor does it seem like it fills a need the present plan does not.  Evansville and especially Henderson are not that big. Where are you getting this from?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 11, 2016, 11:26:56 AM
US 41 bridges need to be replaced eventually, also, since the new bridge is likely to be tolled, they must exist to provide a free alternative.  I hope 41 doesn't get downgraded around the bridge to being 2 lanes wide.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 11, 2016, 12:46:10 PM
US 41 bridges need to be replaced eventually, also, since the new bridge is likely to be tolled, they must exist to provide a free alternative.  I hope 41 doesn't get downgraded around the bridge to being 2 lanes wide.

Maybe the solution would be building an 8-lane bridge that not only carries I-69 but replaces the US-41 bridges.  Kill two birds with one stone?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on February 11, 2016, 01:16:23 PM
and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?

?

This is not even in the broad 2002 map of possibilities, nor does it seem like it fills a need the present plan does not.  Evansville and especially Henderson are not that big. Where are you getting this from?

On a map of the alignments, there was one or two that used the existing US 41 by elevating the interstate over the existing facility and another that plows through a residential neighborhood to the west/north.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 11, 2016, 01:23:11 PM
and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?

?

This is not even in the broad 2002 map of possibilities, nor does it seem like it fills a need the present plan does not.  Evansville and especially Henderson are not that big. Where are you getting this from?

On a map of the alignments, there was one or two that used the existing US 41 by elevating the interstate over the existing facility and another that plows through a residential neighborhood to the west/north.

I suspect the good folks in E-Ville and Henderson wouldn't be particularly happy with those options.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 11, 2016, 01:26:06 PM
US 41 bridges need to be replaced eventually, also, since the new bridge is likely to be tolled, they must exist to provide a free alternative.  I hope 41 doesn't get downgraded around the bridge to being 2 lanes wide.

Maybe the solution would be building an 8-lane bridge that not only carries I-69 but replaces the US-41 bridges.  Kill two birds with one stone?

I think initially the plan was for the new I-69 bridge to be six lanes, but in order to make the bridge more palatable the design was reduced to four lanes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 11, 2016, 01:27:44 PM
US 41 bridges need to be replaced eventually, also, since the new bridge is likely to be tolled, they must exist to provide a free alternative.  I hope 41 doesn't get downgraded around the bridge to being 2 lanes wide.

Maybe the solution would be building an 8-lane bridge that not only carries I-69 but replaces the US-41 bridges.  Kill two birds with one stone?

I think initially the plan was for the new I-69 bridge to be six lanes, but in order to make the bridge more palatable the design was reduced to four lanes.

That and money savings.
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 11, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?

?

This is not even in the broad 2002 map of possibilities, nor does it seem like it fills a need the present plan does not.  Evansville and especially Henderson are not that big. Where are you getting this from?

On a map of the alignments, there was one or two that used the existing US 41 by elevating the interstate over the existing facility and another that plows through a residential neighborhood to the west/north.

I think it's helpful here to come back to this map:

(http://i.imgur.com/h8WNT.jpg)

I'm not sure what the residential neighborhood is you're talking about, and there is certainly no inner city at that point.  Alignment 1 swings up through the empty peninsula, west of the residential area south of the Lloyd where Burdette Park is, and from there it's all rural Posey County.  There are houses, sure, but not many, and a lot of space between them in most cases.  If it were being done now they'd probably co-opt some part of the University Parkway ROW anyway (I don't think any of it existed when this map was made).  The construction of that road is some evidence that it would not really need to plow through much of anything.  The same is more or less true for 1A.

As for how the route would be handled in replacing 41 over the twin bridges, I've never seen any details about elevating it or anything else, but that option does not even seem to appear on this map.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 11, 2016, 03:20:44 PM
and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?
?
This is not even in the broad 2002 map of possibilities, nor does it seem like it fills a need the present plan does not.  Evansville and especially Henderson are not that big. Where are you getting this from?
On a map of the alignments, there was one or two that used the existing US 41 by elevating the interstate over the existing facility and another that plows through a residential neighborhood to the west/north.

This post (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg2106352#msg2106352) briefly discusses the western, single crossing, alternatives from the January, 2014 Feasibility Study:

a January, 2014 I-69 SIU 4 in Henderson County Feasibility Study (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20SIU%204_FEASIBILITY%20STUDY_FINAL.pdf) that KYTC prepared .... BridgeLink's favored alternative is known as Alternative 1a .
An interesting aspect of the January, 2014 Feasibility Study is that all of the alternatives except for Alternative 1a would involve closing the Twin Bridges and building a new bridge (p. 18/82 of pdf; p. ES11 of document):
Quote
In this Feasibility Study, seven alternatives and some variations were examined at the concept level. All but one of these alternatives (1a) would close the existing US 41 twin bridges over the Ohio River northeast of Henderson and construct a new bridge.
The goals of the Feasibility Study were identified as follows (p. 21/82 of pdf; p. 2 of document):
Quote
The following goals were identified for the project Feasibility Study:
* Shorten the project from its original concept so that as much of the existing Breathitt Parkway and US 41 are used for the future I-69 as possible.
* Provide for a single river crossing for US 41 and I-69.
* Provide access from I-69 to the businesses along US 41.
After looking at the comments from the September 8 Evansville meeting and seeing BridgeLink's favored alternative, it seems like the notion of closing the Twin Bridges and having a single crossing I-69 bridge is a non-starter for most people.

Here is a map showing the single crossing alternatives and BridgeLink's preferred multiple crossings alternative (p. 66/82 of pdf; p. 47 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/1YMqwHf.jpg)
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 11, 2016, 03:26:33 PM
That's helpful context.  If this was the source of the western alignment question, then yes, it certainly does plow through residential Henderson.  I suspect my answer is based on a different stage of alternatives than the post I was responding to.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 12, 2016, 11:23:02 AM
The alternatives going right through Henderson are probably the "if Indiana and Kentucky can't afford a bridge" options. If they go that route I am willing to bet that the US 41 bridges are used for I-69 until the US 41 bridges actually "need" replaced another 25 years down the road. In that case they will build the new bridge for I-69/US 41 just west of the current US 41 bridges.

Hate to say I told you so, but even Indiana and Kentucky know that building a new interstate bridge won't be cheap. Upgrading 41 through Henderson and between the river and former I-164 will probably be the option they end up chosing. They've been inching closer and closer to that alternative.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 12, 2016, 12:58:01 PM
Henderson would be pissed to have 69 go over 41 through town.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 12, 2016, 02:11:19 PM

Henderson would be pissed to have 69 go over 41 through town.

It would also be very expensive.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 12, 2016, 02:35:34 PM
Unless they rip right through Henderson they basically have to route it east and build new bridges. There is no way that all the tree huggers would allow I-69 to go through the Audubon State Park. Even I am against running it through there and I am not a tree hugger. The only way I'd support 69 going through the state park is if was placed north of SR 414.

I really do believe that the running it right through Henderson alternatives are the using the existing US 41 bridges for I-69 alternative.

It looks like they are considering putting a tight diamond along the Henderson strip or whatever you want to call it, probably at Watson Lane. I wonder if there is enough room for a frontage road on both sides.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 12, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
I drew on Scribble Maps how I'd design I-69 if it ran right through Henderson. Basically I put up a bunch of walls, an interchange at KY 414, frontage roads along 41, and I had 41 go over Watson Lane. If you view my map on scribble maps you will basically have to zoom in to either 1 or 2 out to see what I have done.

http://www.scribblemaps.com/create/#id=qpznBbxMqv

Key
Red= Barrier wall
Blue= new bridge
Green= new road (interchange ramps, frontage roads, etc)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: EngineerTM on February 12, 2016, 06:51:02 PM
US 41 bridges need to be replaced eventually, also, since the new bridge is likely to be tolled, they must exist to provide a free alternative.  I hope 41 doesn't get downgraded around the bridge to being 2 lanes wide.

I have colleagues who are closer to the decision-makers in this process than I am.  What they have told me so far is that Kentucky would like to "retire" the older of the two bridges and convert it to non-vehicular use.  Then, the other bridge would be converted to carry one lane of traffic in each direction with the objective of directing all commercial and freight traffic to the new I-69 bridge(s).  If Kentucky went that route, the discussions also included posting restrictions on the type of traffic allowed.  The discussions have also included how much Kentucky should spend on the next round of maintenance scheduled for the twin bridges.  If there is real movement towards getting the new bridge (or bridges) built sooner as opposed to later, then Kentucky could scale back on the $$ spent for the upcoming maintenance.

Of course this could change.  However, if the new I-69 bridge(s) are tolled, it would make sense to "encourage" commercial and freight traffic to use the new route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 14, 2016, 01:13:53 AM
It's not been that many years ago that Kentucky did a crapload of work on the bridges. I remember driving across when they had a setup that involved only having one lane open on one bridge. Surely they can't need extensive, expensive work so soon afterwards.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 14, 2016, 05:49:54 AM
It's not been that many years ago that Kentucky did a crapload of work on the bridges. I remember driving across when they had a setup that involved only having one lane open on one bridge. Surely they can't need extensive, expensive work so soon afterwards.

They're to the point now where some sort of maintenance work is being done every few months. Indeed, within the past few months, I noticed new weight limit signs on the NB bridge that I think lowered the limits by a little bit.

The work I think you're referring to is the most recent repaint job -- which didn't hold up: http://www.courierpress.com/news/local/twin-bridges-rusting-just-five-to-six-years-after-painting-ep-443138365-326176461.html
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 14, 2016, 06:05:55 PM
If one of the US 41 bridges were converted to non-vehicle traffic use, it would still cost quite a bit of money to keep it maintained. I am not sure how much less it would cost, though.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 14, 2016, 06:47:05 PM

If one of the US 41 bridges were converted to non-vehicle traffic use, it would still cost quite a bit of money to keep it maintained. I am not sure how much less it would cost, though.

I don't either, but the only comparably large bridge I know that's maintained for pedestrian use is the Poughkeepsie Bridge in New York. 

There's a burgeoning interest in Evansville in multi-use paths (and physical activity in general—it was infamously named the country's obesest metro area a few years back) but this is not only not near existing trails, it would probably cost a lot per user. 

It would be a spectacular ride, though.  The Ohio River is breathtakingly wide.  It would be a tourist draw if done right.

Is there a precedent for pedestrian/bike toll bridges?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 14, 2016, 07:26:37 PM
I believe you have to pay a small toll to walk across the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls between Ontario and New York.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tidecat on February 14, 2016, 08:00:35 PM
I should note that just upstream in Louisville, the operator of Waterfront Park is publicly asking for state assistance. Apparently one of the pledges for lighting the Big 4 bridge fell through.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 14, 2016, 08:18:06 PM

I should note that just upstream in Louisville, the operator of Waterfront Park is publicly asking for state assistance. Apparently one of the pledges for lighting the Big 4 bridge fell through.

Oh, yeah.  I forgot about that bridge in Louisville. Louisville's a lot bigger than Evansville and Henderson, though.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 14, 2016, 12:03:52 PM
the P3 legislation did not pass and this March 27 blog (http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2015/03/potential-for-tolls-didn-t-kill-brent-spence.html?page=all) comments on the reasons why the Kentucky Senate failed to pass the P3 legislation:
Quote
Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce CEO Trey Grayson, a former Kentucky secretary of state and experienced Frankfort hand ....
“The wild card will be what is the new governor’s position on the Brent Spence Bridge as a piece of this,” Grayson said.
This April 2 article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/ridley-says-kentucky-needs-bipartisan-cooperation-in-legislature_01404955) reports that Western Kentucky officals want P3 as an option for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, even if Northern Kentucky officials are opposed to tolls:
Quote
Sen. Dorsey Ridley .... said ....
"If they will at least come across the aisle and have a conversation with us we could do that. We could have passed the P3 (public-private partnership) legislation, in my estimation, and allow us to move forward in building the bridge we need on I-69."
Kyndle CEO and President Brad Schneider agreed
, but said "in Kentucky, sometimes our differences are regional more than they are by party.
"Next session, let the folks in Northern Kentucky know — while they figure out what they want to do — we'd love to move forward here," Schneider said. To fund bridges and other infrastructure in Western Kentucky, he said, "P3 would be a great tool in the toolbox." ....
Rep. Suzanne Miles, R-Owensboro
....
expressed disappointment in the failure of the P3 legislation. "The main thing is for us to get that (Interstate 69) bridge. P3 is one of the best things for that opportunity."

This April 12 article (http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/04/12/new-law-makes-brent-spence-bridge-tolls-illegal.html) reports that, this year, on April 8, recently elected Gov. Bevin signed legislation authorizing public private partnerships (P3s) to help fund transportation projects in Kentucky, except for interstate bridges connecting Ohio and Kentucky:

Quote
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin signed a law on Friday that bans tolls on interstate bridges that connect Ohio and Kentucky ....
In reality, what was known as House Bill 309 makes it possible for private money to be used to fund public projects except in the case of any highway connecting Ohio and Kentucky without authorization from the General Assembly. That essentially rules out the option of tolling for the Brent Spence Bridge.

Since the I-69 Ohio River bridge project would connect Kentucky and Indiana, a P3 incorporating tolls may be considered as part of the funding solution for that project. This March 29 article (http://m.14news.com/14news/db/345625/content/qSxY5GeW), written in anticipation of Gov. Bevin's signature on the legislation, reports on the importance of the legislation in advancing the project:

Quote
Justin Groenert, from the Southwest Indiana Chamber, knows this bill could pave the way for the all-important I-69 bridge over the Ohio.
"It gives Kentucky another avenue to finance the bridge," Groenert said. "We're confident that he'll sign it - so this is a really big win for for the long term in terms of getting this project started."

Legislators and Tri-State officials have been trying to get a bill like this passed for the last three legislative sessions.

In sum, no tolls allowed on the Brent Spence bridge in Northern Kentucky, but tolls would be allowed on the I-69 Ohio River bridge in Western Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on April 14, 2016, 12:26:23 PM
Because politics.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2016, 04:24:22 PM
You can't divorce politics from anything, in my view.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 14, 2016, 09:53:14 PM
There's a loud anti-toll contingent in northern Kentucky, especially Covington. My guess is that if a bill to toll a Brent Spence Bridge replacement was introduced in the General Assembly, it would pass. The NKY delegation isn't that influential.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on April 15, 2016, 09:13:13 AM
There's a loud anti-toll contingent in northern Kentucky, especially Covington. My guess is that if a bill to toll a Brent Spence Bridge replacement was introduced in the General Assembly, it would pass. The NKY delegation isn't that influential.

Is there any chance of a bill making it to the General Assembly in the near future?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 15, 2016, 03:04:59 PM
There's a loud anti-toll contingent in northern Kentucky, especially Covington. My guess is that if a bill to toll a Brent Spence Bridge replacement was introduced in the General Assembly, it would pass. The NKY delegation isn't that influential.

Is there any chance of a bill making it to the General Assembly in the near future?

Not until next year. Today is the last day of this year's session.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 04:53:14 PM
What is the likelihood of such a bill being proposed in the near future?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 16, 2016, 11:32:52 PM
Depends on whether or not the two states want to move forward with building a bridge and putting tolls on it. There's still a coalition that persists in claiming that an outer eastern/southeastern loop (with a new bridge somewhere upstream from Newport) would be cheaper than a parallel to the Brent Spence and all the work that will have to be done to the interchanges at either end.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on April 17, 2016, 06:14:08 PM
Depends on whether or not the two states want to move forward with building a bridge and putting tolls on it. There's still a coalition that persists in claiming that an outer eastern/southeastern loop (with a new bridge somewhere upstream from Newport) would be cheaper than a parallel to the Brent Spence and all the work that will have to be done to the interchanges at either end.

Would this also be upstream of the I-275 east bridge? Either way, a new alignment upstream of Newport doesn't really seem to fix the problem.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 18, 2016, 02:56:12 PM
Depends on whether or not the two states want to move forward with building a bridge and putting tolls on it. There's still a coalition that persists in claiming that an outer eastern/southeastern loop (with a new bridge somewhere upstream from Newport) would be cheaper than a parallel to the Brent Spence and all the work that will have to be done to the interchanges at either end.

Would this also be upstream of the I-275 east bridge? Either way, a new alignment upstream of Newport doesn't really seem to fix the problem.

Yes, and I originally meant to mention that. Detractors are pushing the fact that supporters of this project include real estate developers who would like better access to land in Campbell County, Ky.

I just wonder how far people, especially commercial vehicle drivers, are willing to go out of their way to avoid delays and backups. Last time I came south on I-75 through Cincinnati, I went around the east side on I-275 to avoid traffic heading to a Bengals game, but I might have done that anyway because I'm a roadgeek. I just wonder if a trucker would think the extra mileage to go around on I-275, or an even more remote outer bypass, would be worth it.

I got my fill of I-75 in Ohio when I ran into backups in the afternoon in the vicinity of the Norwood Lateral, the Lockland split and the Glendale areas on my way to some meet several years ago (possibly Fort Wayne). So, the next time I would have been going in that direction (the most recent Dayton meet) I opted for a routing of basically KY 11, US 68 and OH 73 to avoid Cincinnati completely. But again, that wouldn't be unusual for me to do.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 20, 2016, 02:30:29 PM
Here is a snip from the Projects List of the 2016 Recommended Highway Plan (p. 51/119 of pdf) (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Documents/2016RecommendedProjectListing.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/EVq5Q5g.png)

This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/news/state-lawmakers-reflect-on-pension-efforts-i-69-funding-30d83296-09bc-14c9-e053-0100007f28a4-376277391.html) reports on a post-legislative session review and includes the scheduled timeline for progress on the I-69 Ohio River Bridge:

Quote
Pensions funds, I-69 funding and more financial transparency were among the topics Tuesday as state legislators came together for "Coffee with Kyndle: A Legislative Review Breakfast."
Panel participants included senators Dorsey Ridley and Joe Bowen, and representatives Jim Gooch Jr., Suzanne Miles and David Watkins ....
"The I-69 (bridge) corridor is alive and well, and the road plan we put before Gov. Matt Bevin is better than I ever dreamed," Ridley explained. "Simply because in 2016, we have $2.8 million for the environment survey; in 2017, we have $6 million for the design phase; then in 2018, there's $20 million for right of way acquisition; and in 2019 there's money to do the utility moving. These are all things that have to happen before we turn the first spade of dirt ... I do have to give Gov. Bevin credit because he pushed the original environmental piece forward, and the rest of it came rapidly."



the Executive Summary of the 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I-69 between Evansville and Henderson (http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/executive%20summary.pdf) ....
Alternative 2 was identified as the Preferred Alternative (page 23/23 of pdf; page S-23 of document)
Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx
a January, 2014 I-69 SIU 4 in Henderson County Feasibility Study (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20SIU%204_FEASIBILITY%20STUDY_FINAL.pdf) that KYTC prepared ... BridgeLink's favored alternative is known as Alternative 1a .... (p. 51/82 of pdf; p. 32 of document)
....
This January 28 article (http://www.thegleaner.com/news/schneider-gives-update-on-kyndle--2a2eabeb-ae1b-79b9-e053-0100007f7872-366903111.html) reports on Kyndle CEO Brad Schneider's belief that the environmental study will focus on the above two corridors:
Quote
Kyndle CEO Brad Schneider ....
The governor bumped up the environmental impact study on the bridge from 2018 to 2017. He also added $300,000 to the project and added $41 million for pre-construction work in years 2019-21.
Schneider thinks this signals that Bevin is going to update the environmental impact study on the old route, examine the new route and do a total revenue study that will jibe with the one done in Indiana last fall.
It will be interesting to see whether KYTC will be required to study additional corridors as part of the environmental process, or, in the alternative, whether information gleaned from the 2004 DEIS and the 2014 SIU 4 Henderson County Feasibility Study will allow KYTC to immediately focus on the above two corridors.

Having the environmental study in 2016, design in 2017, and ROW acquisition in 2018 seems like an aggressive timetable.  I'm guessing that FHWA will somehow allow use of the previous studies to be incorporated into a streamlined environmental process.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2016, 02:49:37 PM
The sooner the better.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on April 20, 2016, 03:07:12 PM

Having the environmental study in 2016, design in 2017, and ROW acquisition in 2018 seems like an aggressive timetable.  I'm guessing that FHWA will somehow allow use of the previous studies to be incorporated into a streamlined environmental process.

Wouldn't Indiana have to pay for some of this stuff? Like the design and environmental studies and whatever right of way they have on their side?

It would be cool if they can actually follow that schedule so that the bridge and Section 6 will be finished approximately the same time.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 21, 2016, 12:15:53 PM
Funding is guaranteed only for the current biennium. Anything listed as occurring in 2018 and beyond is not set in stone, and can be pushed back farther.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on April 21, 2016, 12:25:35 PM
The best way to streamline the environmental process is to do a supplemental EIS. Some environmental studies will need to be refreshed to see if the original conclusions are still valid, and it would probably take at least a year since some species are seasonal in their survey requirements (sometimes only a one month window within a year). But that way, they wouldn't need to "reinvent the wheel" so to speak.  But if they want to look at something completely different, it will probably take extra time.
Title: After Setbacks, I-69 Bridge Project Gaining Momentum
Post by: mukade on June 24, 2016, 09:23:13 PM
Quote
Local leaders are extremely hopeful and optimistic ahead of Indiana Governor Mike Pence's 'major announcement' regarding I-69 next week. The announcement, which is to be held in the shadow of the Twin Bridges, is expected to center around the possibility of an I-69 bridge.

After Setbacks, I-69 Bridge Project Gaining Momentum (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/after-setbacks-i-69-bridge-project-gaining-momentum) (tristatehomepage.com)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on June 27, 2016, 09:48:23 AM

Ellis Park is actually in Kentucky (despite being on the N. Side of the Ohio River), so I'd expect Bevin to be there as well.

I think a P3 announcement may actually be happening.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on June 27, 2016, 10:32:45 AM
About time that thing is finally going to get built!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 27, 2016, 01:47:24 PM

Ellis Park is actually in Kentucky (despite being on the N. Side of the Ohio River), so I'd expect Bevin to be there as well.

I think a P3 announcement may actually be happening.

There's been no publicity at all on this in Kentucky regarding the governor's involvement, or what might be on the agenda.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on June 28, 2016, 09:28:46 AM

Ellis Park is actually in Kentucky (despite being on the N. Side of the Ohio River), so I'd expect Bevin to be there as well.

I think a P3 announcement may actually be happening.

There's been no publicity at all on this in Kentucky regarding the governor's involvement, or what might be on the agenda.

I guess it is an election year for Pence, but I would think this would be bigger than just INDOT kicking in some environmental/design work money.

Here's a little more detail on Bridgelink's Facebook page that they posted last night (https://www.facebook.com/Bridgelink-164632647077987)

(http://i.imgur.com/wgx4TTm.jpg)

Section 5 is under construction and Section 6 is in the design phase, so there's really nothing else to announce except the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on June 28, 2016, 01:19:31 PM
If the SIU 3 work is coming in under budget, Indiana might have some more money to kick in toward environmental, design, and ROW for the SIU 4 bridge. That's all I can figure unless they got one of the FASTLANE grants that haven't been announced yet.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on June 30, 2016, 09:49:52 AM
http://www.cityofhendersonky.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=186

Quote
HENDERSON, Ky. -- An announcement described as having a "major I-69 infrastructure" update from Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin is set for Thursday at Ellis Park.
According to a news release from BridgeLink, the announcement will take place at 1:30 p.m. in the south parking lot at Ellis Park.

If the SIU 3 work is coming in under budget, Indiana might have some more money to kick in toward environmental, design, and ROW for the SIU 4 bridge. That's all I can figure unless they got one of the FASTLANE grants that haven't been announced yet.

If the tolling study turned out well, tolls should be able to pay for most of the bridge (based on the Bridgelink redesign which is ~$600 million cheaper).  The money should add up in theory.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 30, 2016, 12:17:29 PM
Kentucky announced Bevin's participation on Tuesday. Pence's participation was announced at least a week ahead of time. I find the states' different approaches to announcing gubernatorial events interesting.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 30, 2016, 01:12:15 PM
I have never had a problem traversing the Ohio on the current US 41.  What is the big deal?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Sykotyk on June 30, 2016, 01:57:34 PM
I have never had a problem traversing the Ohio on the current US 41.  What is the big deal?

They're probably not going to turn it into a freeway on that alignment, which makes connecting I-69 in KY and IN impossible.

However, if their goal is to toll it, it better be a cheap toll, or else way too many shunpikers are going to follow US41. And with US41 still free, I can't imagine truck traffic not wanting to just jog west a few miles, cross the free bridge, and then get back on I-69. Especially with US41 north of Evansville having a lot of truck related facilities near the airport, making all trucks take the toll bridge seems difficult to pull off.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on June 30, 2016, 02:25:32 PM
Edit:
Here's the archived video


Basically just announced design/study is happening.  Will reply later if they send out a press release somewhere else.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on June 30, 2016, 03:33:25 PM
They're probably not going to turn it into a freeway on that alignment, which makes connecting I-69 in KY and IN impossible.

However, if their goal is to toll it, it better be a cheap toll, or else way too many shunpikers are going to follow US41. And with US41 still free, I can't imagine truck traffic not wanting to just jog west a few miles, cross the free bridge, and then get back on I-69. Especially with US41 north of Evansville having a lot of truck related facilities near the airport, making all trucks take the toll bridge seems difficult to pull off.

Put a weight restriction on the older bridge, toll the I-69 bridge only in that direction, and voila!

Here's a story from the Courier and Press (http://www.courierpress.com/news/local/live-i-69-bridge-announcement-366c7219-cd0c-78fb-e053-0100007f3f97-385060261.html) on the announcement, which seems rather short on details.

Quote
State officials from Indiana and Kentucky announced the commission of study and design work for an Interstate 69 bridge between Evansville and Henderson.

The cost for the project was estimated by BridgeLink officials as about $850 million for a four-lane bridge over the Ohio River. It would include "modest tolls."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: bmeiser on June 30, 2016, 03:44:47 PM
That's actually a good summary of the announcement today.  It was 30 minutes of BSing and thanking everybody, 2 minutes of Pence announcing what that article summarizes, and 6:53 minutes of Bevin trying to be a comedian.  The whole 38:53 video is at the bottom of the article if anybody is interested.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 30, 2016, 03:49:20 PM
I watched the live stream of the event. Basically, they're starting design on the new bridge. Indiana will be the lead agency.

As to why the existing US 41 needs to be bypassed, Gov. Bevin made a humorous observation about it, talking about all the gas stations along "The Strip" and how they are all selling gas for the same price, and when one raises its price, the rest follow suit. This stretch cannot be easily turned into a freeway. The bridges, especially the older one, don't meet interstate standards.

As for eliminating shunpikers, it's easy -- you ban truck traffic on the US 41 bridges. And enforce the ban. Kentucky can do that since the bridges are entirely in Kentucky, another geographical oddity that was noted during the event.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on June 30, 2016, 05:00:42 PM
I think its totally ridiculous not allowing trucks to use the US 41 bridges. The truck drivers didn't tell the government to build a new toll bridge that they (IN and KY) cannot afford. I think truckers and anybody else should have the freedom to choose whichever bridges they want to use.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: alecscradle on June 30, 2016, 07:07:08 PM
I don't think they'd ban trucks from the US 41 Bridge.  They typically only do that if a bridge is structurally deficient (though that might happen soon with this bridge).  I think it wouldn't make much sense for trucks to use US 41 even with a toll.  US 41 adds about 5-6 miles compared to the I-69 routing.  Plus US 41 North of US 60 is just a 45 mph 4 lane road with a few lights along the stretch.  And the Bridge is only at 55 mph.  My guess is going up 41 would take 15-20 min longer, which I don't think is worth it for most truckers.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on June 30, 2016, 08:33:59 PM
I would not be shocked that some years in the future after the I-69 crossing is complete, that the older bridge may be closed if there are structural issues and US 41 narrowed back down to two-lane traffic across the river.  In the presentation today, it was hinted at where one of the officials (I think Gov. Pence) said that at least one US 41 bridge would be maintained for local traffic.  That would certainaly make a tolled I-69 bridge more attractive for through traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 30, 2016, 08:37:04 PM
I would not be shocked that some years in the future after the I-69 crossing is complete, that the older bridge may be closed if there are structural issues and US 41 narrowed back down to two-lane traffic across the river.  In the presentation today, it was hinted at where one of the officials (I think Gov. Pence) said that at least one US 41 bridge would be maintained for local traffic.  That would certainaly make a tolled I-69 bridge more attractive for through traffic.

I've heard that the old bridge will be a ped bridge when it get time to repair it.  In a perfect world, they'd replace that one too, I wonder how much traffic will drop off on 41 after 69 crosses the ohio.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on June 30, 2016, 11:01:45 PM
I think its totally ridiculous not allowing trucks to use the US 41 bridges. The truck drivers didn't tell the government to build a new toll bridge that they (IN and KY) cannot afford. I think truckers and anybody else should have the freedom to choose whichever bridges they want to use.

"Local access only"

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 01, 2016, 08:34:23 AM
Here's the press release they sent out (http://www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventList.aspx?view=EventDetails&eventidn=249028&information_id=246752&type=&syndicate=syndicate)

Quote
Indiana, Kentucky Governors Launch I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project

Henderson, KY – Indiana Governor Mike Pence and Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin today signed a Memorandum of Agreement to launch the I-69 Ohio River Crossing project. The states announced a combined commitment of about $17 million in their capital plans to advance project development.

 “As the Crossroads of America, we know that roads mean jobs here in the Hoosier state,” said Governor Pence. “The partnership we are announcing today is a significant step in completing the vision of I-69 that will strengthen our transportation network and support economic investment and opportunity for generations of Hoosiers to come.”

Indiana and Kentucky will seek innovations from the private sector in expediting preliminary design and the required environmental review, with both states splitting costs and oversight. The MOA signed today authorizes the Indiana Department of Transportation to publish a formal request for proposals later this summer.

 “I-69 is opening up Western Kentucky like never before,” said Governor Bevin. “Advancing the Ohio River Crossing will continue to build on that momentum. This additional north-south trunk will invite investment and spark further job growth in Kentucky. Our partnership will pay dividends for the entire Commonwealth.”

The environmental review and preliminary design will collect public input and study potential routes to connect the existing I-69 sections, the Robert D. Orr Highway south of Evansville and the upgraded Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway south of Henderson. The review will also consider and collect public input on funding sources to build the project. Working cooperatively with the Federal Highway Administration, the states anticipate it will take about three years to complete the review and reach conclusions for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing route.

 For additional information about the I-69 Ohio River Crossing project, visit: www.I69Crossing.indot.in.gov.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 01, 2016, 08:38:33 AM
Henderson needs to get on the Breezewood bandwagon now.  If I were rgovernor  I would like the traffic to slow down and take a break in KENTUCKY.  Building the bridge will only cause tax dollars to drive away.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on July 01, 2016, 10:41:37 AM
So, what kind of time frame are we looking at?

Planning and design will take x.

Putting out bids and aquiring the right of way will take y.

Construction will take z.

x+y+z=?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 01, 2016, 11:43:50 AM
Has an EIS been conducted for the route?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on July 01, 2016, 12:21:34 PM
Has an EIS been conducted for the route?

Crud, I forgot to add that to my equation...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: slorydn1 on July 01, 2016, 01:38:26 PM
Oh yeah and don't forget to add "n squared"  (the number of frivolous NIMBY lawsuits x the time it takes [in years] for those suits to make their way through the process) to your equation.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 01, 2016, 02:10:31 PM
Henderson needs to get on the Breezewood bandwagon now.  If I were rgovernor  I would like the traffic to slow down and take a break in KENTUCKY.  Building the bridge will only cause tax dollars to drive away.

Henderson is very supportive of building the I-69 bridge and completing the link. They probably expect the benefits to outweigh any negatives that might come from diverting through traffic off US 41.

I've been on the "Strip" section of US 41 a few times during busy parts of the day. It stinks. There's a reason everyone hates Breezewood.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-39 on July 01, 2016, 02:56:44 PM
I thought they already had been planning this for years? Why is there going to be a 3 year EIS?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 01, 2016, 03:23:27 PM
Henderson needs to get on the Breezewood bandwagon now.  If I were rgovernor  I would like the traffic to slow down and take a break in KENTUCKY.  Building the bridge will only cause tax dollars to drive away.

Henderson is very supportive of building the I-69 bridge and completing the link. They probably expect the benefits to outweigh any negatives that might come from diverting through traffic off US 41.

I've been on the "Strip" section of US 41 a few times during busy parts of the day. It stinks. There's a reason everyone hates Breezewood.

I have never had any problem with this section.  It could be that I always patronize businesses in Henderson.  I think I have always stopped in Henderson for some reason or another.  If I-69 was complete through there I seriously doubt that I would stop there.  I even done business there when my destination was Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 01, 2016, 03:48:09 PM
I thought they already had been planning this for years? Why is there going to be a 3 year EIS?

environmental permitting processes are fucking annoying and take forever!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 02, 2016, 06:03:53 PM
I thought they already had been planning this for years? Why is there going to be a 3 year EIS?

The old EIS was too expensive.  The Bridgelink group estimated another route + changes to bridge design to be $600 million cheaper.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on August 02, 2016, 08:21:31 PM
Quote
A southern Indiana man who was once in charge of getting I-69 built now has a new challenge. Indiana Department of Transportation Deputy Commissioner Sam Sarvis is now in charge of a single project: getting the bridge built on I-69 connecting Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky.

If you remember the aggressive construction schedule for sections 1-3, Sam Sarvis was the one in charge so I think this is good news.

New challenge for I-69 ramrod: Building new Evansville-Henderson, Ky., bridge (http://indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=235&ArticleID=84795) (Indiana Economic Digest)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: madbengalsfan85 on August 22, 2016, 06:17:53 AM
It doesn't seem possible that the 69 bridge would happen before the Brent Spence replacement; but somehow, that's exactly where things are
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on August 22, 2016, 02:30:13 PM
Henderson needs to get on the Breezewood bandwagon now.  If I were rgovernor  I would like the traffic to slow down and take a break in KENTUCKY.  Building the bridge will only cause tax dollars to drive away.

Henderson is very supportive of building the I-69 bridge and completing the link. They probably expect the benefits to outweigh any negatives that might come from diverting through traffic off US 41.

I've been on the "Strip" section of US 41 a few times during busy parts of the day. It stinks. There's a reason everyone hates Breezewood.

I have never had any problem with this section.  It could be that I always patronize businesses in Henderson.  I think I have always stopped in Henderson for some reason or another.  If I-69 was complete through there I seriously doubt that I would stop there.  I even done business there when my destination was Evansville.

The problem is much greater than patronizing a few convenience stores when a tourist is passing through. The Evansville-Henderson metro is by far the largest metro on either the Ohio or Mississippi with a single highway crossing. Many people rely on this bridge as a sole link between work and home, with the overwhelming percentage being Henderson residents working in Evansville. Try being a single mom working in Evansville, getting off work and rushing to get your child at school or daycare, only to find the bridge blocked with another accident. Now imagine an ambulance with the same dilemma. These aren't just random occurrences.

I also think Henderson has the potential to benefit the most in terms of residential growth. The current growth here is in Newburgh to the east of Evansville, and the northern parts of Vanderburgh County. Henderson has been somewhat stagnant. With much lower utilities, lower taxes and a decent school system, Henderson could actually become a very attractive place for new residents with sufficient access to Evansville.

All of this far outweighs the few dollars dumped at a gas station or fast food joint by an occasional tourists passing through on the strip.
[/quote]
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 22, 2016, 02:31:47 PM
the environmental team will be selected soon.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on August 22, 2016, 04:36:20 PM
Always keep in mind that not only are the current US 41 twin bridges the only crossing between Evansville IN/Henderson KY, the bridges themselves are fairly old with one pushing 75 years.  They are also a main artery north and south with a lot of traffic carried on both.  I could see additional traffic (that's why I recommend a six lane I-69 bridge) with its completion since you could very well see some current I-65 South traffic take I-69 to Pennyrile (I-124) to I-24 to Nashville to get around Louisville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2016, 05:46:59 PM
Whoa! When did the first 34 miles of the Pennyrile Parkway get designated Interstate 124? I thought the only existing 124 was the unsigned one in Chattanooga?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on August 22, 2016, 08:06:30 PM
I think I-124 was a typo.  The remainder of the Pennyrile Parkway is still the Pennyrile Parkway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on August 23, 2016, 12:22:42 AM
I think I-124 was a typo.  The remainder of the Pennyrile Parkway is still the Pennyrile Parkway.

I thought it was going to be I-169.  :confused: Or did that bill never pass?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 23, 2016, 01:38:09 PM
They should designate it as I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on August 23, 2016, 01:39:52 PM
The Southern Pennyrile has not been designated as I-124, it's just that a group from KY have been pushing in that direction, so I thought that I would just humor them.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 23, 2016, 01:40:35 PM
They should designate it as I-69E.

never!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 23, 2016, 01:43:38 PM
What about I-24E?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 23, 2016, 01:44:22 PM
What about I-24E?

it can be any number you want, minus the letter suffix
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2016, 06:29:10 PM
Actually, I think Interstate 124 wouldn't be a bad number for the first 34 miles of the Pennyrile Parkway. Maybe the remainder of the Western Kentucky Parkway could be an x-69 three-digit Interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: alecscradle on August 23, 2016, 09:24:36 PM
Is Pennyrile up to Interstate Standards down there? Because unless it is, I doubt that there's any chance of them upgrading it just to put a Spur on there.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on August 23, 2016, 10:15:22 PM
I believe that most of the Pennyrile is up to interstate standards with the exception of exit 12, on the north side of Hopkinsville, where a toll booth used to be.  The extension from exit 7 to I-24 was definitely made with the up to date standards.

Heck, if Kentucky were north Carolina, who knows how many interstates would be within the state lines of KY!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on August 24, 2016, 11:43:00 PM
If they are going to designate the southern half of the Pennyrile as an interstate, I would prefer it takes on a 2-di, that can be multiplexed with both 24 and 69 between Evansville and Nashville, such as I-61. Giving it a 3-di would create 3 separate interstates linking the two cities, which was served for many years with US 41.

In addition, it could plant the seeds to gradually upgrade 41 in Indiana to the new route, eventually reaching Chicago. That sure would help alleviate the congestion along I-65 as well.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 07, 2016, 08:38:00 AM
On a Facebook post that I unfortunately cannot provide a link to :-( the Parkway was numbered Interstate 269, as it connects two Interstates.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 16, 2016, 01:29:07 PM
This article (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/33715164/states-select-i-69-bridge-design-team) reports that INDOT and KYTC have selected Parson Transportation Group for the preliminary design and to conduct the environmental review of the I-69 Ohio River bridge, a contract with that team is hoped to be finalized by the end of the year, and that the enveironmental review could take three years:

Quote
The Indiana Department of Transportation and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet have chosen California-based Parson Transportation Group Inc. to lead the preliminary design and environmental review for the proposed I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project. Both departments hope to have an advance contract signed by the end of the year.
INDOT says the Parsons will conduct the review by collecting public input and studying potential routes for the interstate extension, as well as funding sources for the project. Both departments will meet with Parsons this week to begin contract negotiations. Parsons was selected from a number of firms who submitted proposals for the project.
Announced in June, Indiana Governor Mike Pence and Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin announced both states would split the costs and oversight of the preliminary design and environmental testing work. Pence called the bridge an "artery of growth" that will help bring more prosperity to both states.
The extension will connect Evansville with Henderson, Kentucky.
Pence and Bevin said they had set aside $17 million for development costs. At the time of the original announcement, officials estimated the review and federal approval processes could take about three years to complete.

There is also this TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/i-69-bridge-partner-announced-today-negotiations-already-underway) about the selection of Parson.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ukfan758 on December 06, 2016, 02:03:43 PM
This article (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/33715164/states-select-i-69-bridge-design-team) reports that INDOT and KYTC have selected Parson Transportation Group for the preliminary design and to conduct the environmental review of the I-69 Ohio River bridge, a contract with that team is hoped to be finalized by the end of the year, and that the enveironmental review could take three years:

Quote
The Indiana Department of Transportation and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet have chosen California-based Parson Transportation Group Inc. to lead the preliminary design and environmental review for the proposed I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project. Both departments hope to have an advance contract signed by the end of the year.
INDOT says the Parsons will conduct the review by collecting public input and studying potential routes for the interstate extension, as well as funding sources for the project. Both departments will meet with Parsons this week to begin contract negotiations. Parsons was selected from a number of firms who submitted proposals for the project.
Announced in June, Indiana Governor Mike Pence and Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin announced both states would split the costs and oversight of the preliminary design and environmental testing work. Pence called the bridge an "artery of growth" that will help bring more prosperity to both states.
The extension will connect Evansville with Henderson, Kentucky.
Pence and Bevin said they had set aside $17 million for development costs. At the time of the original announcement, officials estimated the review and federal approval processes could take about three years to complete.

There is also this TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/i-69-bridge-partner-announced-today-negotiations-already-underway) about the selection of Parson.

What exactly is done in a study to make it take 3 years?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on December 06, 2016, 02:12:36 PM
They have to go over every single blade of grass to make sure there isn't a single animal, plant, wetland, waterway, piece of land that could theoretically be used for farming, parkland, scenic view, historic building, archaeological resource, or a number of other things that could potentially be negatively affected by the project.  If even one thing is missed, it means a massive lawsuit would likely be filed against the state by an environmental group.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on December 06, 2016, 02:21:38 PM
They have to go over every single blade of grass to make sure there isn't a single animal, plant, wetland, waterway, piece of land that could theoretically be used for farming, parkland, scenic view, historic building, archaeological resource, or a number of other things that could potentially be negatively affected by the project.  If even one thing is missed, it means a massive lawsuit would likely be filed against the state by an environmental group.

those are so annoying to complete
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on December 06, 2016, 02:45:48 PM
They have to go over every single blade of grass to make sure there isn't a single animal, plant, wetland, waterway, piece of land that could theoretically be used for farming, parkland, scenic view, historic building, archaeological resource, or a number of other things that could potentially be negatively affected by the project.  If even one thing is missed, it means a massive lawsuit would likely be filed against the state by an environmental group.

those are so annoying to complete

LOL, we all know CARR will probably sue out of spite at this point.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: compdude787 on December 06, 2016, 06:36:11 PM
Only three years?!

There is a road up near my family's cabin in the Cascade Mountains that had a half-mile section washed out in a 2006 flood. The county plans to rebuild the road uphill, but the environmental impact statement and all that crap has taken over ten years to do, and construction on this road won't start until 2018, and the road won't be completed until 2020! That's fourteen years without a paved road to our cabin. We currently have to to drive on a gravel road to our cabin, which takes 45 minutes longer.

Moral of the story: I HATE environmental impact statements!! There should be a law that states that they can't spend more than three years on them.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on December 06, 2016, 09:10:02 PM
Only three years?!

There is a road up near my family's cabin in the Cascade Mountains that had a half-mile section washed out in a 2006 flood. The county plans to rebuild the road uphill, but the environmental impact statement and all that crap has taken over ten years to do, and construction on this road won't start until 2018, and the road won't be completed until 2020! That's fourteen years without a paved road to our cabin. We currently have to to drive on a gravel road to our cabin, which takes 45 minutes longer.

Moral of the story: I HATE environmental impact statements!! There should be a law that states that they can't spend more than three years on them.

amen brother, i have to fill them out a lot at work, most of what they make you do is a waste of time.  I'm for keeping a good environment, but some of the things you need to do for permits is simply silly.  i don't want to get to political about it, but i HATE these things too!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 11, 2017, 01:27:45 PM
This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/01/09/legislators-report-historical-first-week-session-kyndle-breakfast/96345894/) reports that Indiana has been assigned the lead for the approaches to the bridge, and that the process should take about eighteen months:

Quote
One for the history books is how several local Kentucky officials described the first week of the new legislative session in which several bills were  fast-tracked to the governor's desk, including legislation involving abortion, right to work and the establishment a new U of L board of trustees.
State Sen. Dorsey Ridley, a Democrat who has been named as the Minority Caucus Chair; Republican Rep. Suzanne Miles; and newly elected Rep. Robby Mills, also a Republican, spoke during a legislative preview breakfast Monday morning sponsored by Kyndle at the Big Rivers Training Facility at Third and Main streets ...
During a question and answer period,City Commissioner Patti Bugg asked about the state of the I-69 bridge project.
"The leadership on the bridge approaches has been given to the Indiana Department of Transportation," Mills said. "So there is a lot of work to preparing routes, studying routes, preparing ... we were told that is an 18 month process."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 26, 2017, 10:13:18 PM
This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/01/26/engineer--69-route-henderson-should-announced-2019/97085938/) quotes an engineer as saying that a route around Henderson should be selected in 2019 and, if all goes smoothly, the I-69 Bridge should open in 2027:

Quote
While there is still no route decided for I-69 through Henderson, an answer should be coming in late 2019.
Kevin McClearn, the western Kentucky regional manager for American Engineers, Inc., spoke at the Henderson Rotary Club on Thursday about his thoughts on I-69 and what Henderson might see in the future.
Previously an engineer for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, McClearn offered his professional opinion on the project, but stressed that he wasn't officially representing the project.
While Parsons Transportation Group is the lead consultant on the I-69 Ohio River crossing project, Stantec, the same company working on the design for a new Spottsville Bridge, will also consult on the process, along with American Engineers, Inc., and 16 other consultants ....
In 2019, consultants plan to receive a record of decision, which includes environmental studies and other information, from the federal government. From there, an exact I-69 route through Henderson and/or Henderson County will be selected and funding will be decided upon.
"No one can predict where the route is going to go," said McClearn. "We all have our guesses. I'm not able to tell you what their favorite (route) is because there is no favorite. Everything will be considered. Once a route is chosen, hopefully it'll be a defendable alignment." ....
Different routes on the table include paths parallel and just to the east of the twin bridges or that follow along the existing U.S. 41 corridor. Another possible route would cross the Ohio River much further east, traveling between the communities of Graham and Zion before then connecting with the current Pennyrile Parkway/I-69 path. And yet another path further to the east would span the Ohio and then turn southwest after crossing U.S. 60 before merging with the current U.S. 41 just north of Kentucky 351.
With the question of the specific route for I-69 comes several other issues.
McClearn said one important question to ask is will the twin bridges remain or be demolished? After all, maintaining the structures comes at a high price. To maintain the bridges, KYTC may fix sections, paint, control vegetation and clean. And, according to McClearn, it takes approximately $25 million to paint both of the U.S. 41 bridges.
If a new bridge is built, officials may also consider keeping just one of the twin bridges ....
When asked what year he would guess the I-69 Ohio River crossing project would be complete, McClearn anticipated the project would not be complete until the year 2027, and that's if the project encounters no serious setbacks.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 27, 2017, 09:58:16 AM
wow 10 yrs
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on January 27, 2017, 05:00:04 PM
"The Methusela Memorial Bridge..."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2017, 05:24:12 PM
2027? We'll be old and grey by then!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on January 29, 2017, 03:41:20 AM
2027? We'll be old and grey by then!

I'm already old, and what little hair is left has been gray a long time! X-(  But seriously, given the fact that we're dealing with two jurisdictions with two individual ways of financing this project, and the fact that even raising 20% of the total cost of bridging not only a navigable river but the adjacent floodplains on either side is, in these times of fiscal uncertainty, a daunting task -- a 10-year timeframe doesn't seem all that discouraging or even unusual. 

As the projected I-69 crossing will likely be tolled, "halving" the present twin-span US 41 bridges would probably have the effect of discouraging large-scale shunpiking while maintaining an alternative which probably wouldn't be too onerous during off-peak hours.  Just eliminate the one that poses the greatest problems re maintenance and/or structural aging. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 14, 2017, 02:23:29 PM
2027? We'll be old and grey by then!

In this March 9 TV vdeo (http://www.14news.com/story/34713286/mayor-winnecke-says-i-69-completion-is-a-priority), Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke expresses hope that Vice-President (and former Indiana Governor) Pence could include the I-69 Ohio River bridge in the infrastructure package and maybe accelerate development of the project:

Quote
The Mayor says one of the biggest priorities this year is the completion of I-69, not only to the north but also the new Ohio River Bridge between Evansville and Henderson.
It's something Indiana, Kentucky, and the federal government must figure out how to pay for.
Right now, officials are conducting an environmental impact study first.
"We hope that as the EIS gets completed in the next year and a half to two years and as we have in-depth discussions about potential funding sources that the Vice President will remember this as he and the President work together on the proposed infrastructure package," said Mayor Winnecke. "We'll certainly use all our connections that we have."
The exact location of the I-69 bridge between Evansville and Henderson has not yet been determined.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on March 16, 2017, 08:59:38 PM
I have never been delayed ever either Southbound or Northbound on the current bridge configuration.  Are the current bridges safe?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 16, 2017, 10:57:49 PM
I have never been delayed ever either Southbound or Northbound on the current bridge configuration.  Are the current bridges safe?

You must not be traveling them at the right time. I need to put you in touch with the people who deal with the delays here on a frequent basis. Most anytime there's even the slightest incident on one of the bridges, or even minor routine maintenance, traffic stacks up.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 17, 2017, 01:42:56 AM
I have never been delayed ever either Southbound or Northbound on the current bridge configuration.  Are the current bridges safe?

You must not be traveling them at the right time. I need to put you in touch with the people who deal with the delays here on a frequent basis. Most anytime there's even the slightest incident on one of the bridges, or even minor routine maintenance, traffic stacks up.

I am one of those people hb. Evansville-Henderson is the largest metropolitan area on either the Ohio or Mississippi with a single bridge crossing. Try working on one side, and having children at school or daycare on the other side, and there is a backup. Backups are regular and too frequent.

This guy has some strange obsession with leaving US 41 as is, so the Henderson 41 North McDonalds isn't affected any.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2017, 05:23:50 PM
best case scenario is brand new 69 crossing and 2 brand new 41 crossings (twin bridges for 41).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on March 17, 2017, 06:30:20 PM
best case scenario is brand new 69 crossing and 2 brand new 41 crossings (twin bridges for 41).

That's unlikely, at least in the near term.  Having enough trouble getting the financial wherewithal to build the 69 bridge; any revamping or replacement of the 41 bridges will probably have to wait until well after the new 69 crossing is somewhat amortized -- or at least not fresh in the memory of those with the purse strings. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 17, 2017, 08:32:50 PM
best case scenario is brand new 69 crossing and 2 brand new 41 crossings (twin bridges for 41).

That's unlikely, at least in the near term.  Having enough trouble getting the financial wherewithal to build the 69 bridge; any revamping or replacement of the 41 bridges will probably have to wait until well after the new 69 crossing is somewhat amortized -- or at least not fresh in the memory of those with the purse strings.

The older bridge is about 80 years old. The other bridge was built in the 1960s. Both had substantial work about eight or nine years ago and are in good shape structurally. Most likely option is when the I-69 bridge is built and it becomes impractical to continue to maintain the southbound span, it is closed and two-way traffic is maintained on the northbound span, since the new I-69 bridge will likely take traffic off of US 41.

Also remember that while the I-69 will be a joint venture between Kentucky and Indiana, the US 41 crossing is entirely in Kentucky and is 100 percent the Bluegrass State's financial responsibility.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2017, 08:35:11 PM
Is it likely that 69 will be towed?
(Bridge only)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on March 17, 2017, 09:17:38 PM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2017, 09:22:42 PM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
If that's the case I'd say 41 won't lose much traffic
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 17, 2017, 11:03:24 PM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
If that's the case I'd say 41 won't lose much traffic

It will if they do something to discourage through traffic -- more traffic lights, lowered weight limit on the bridge, a truck ban, etc.

It boggles my mind that people would rather go out of the way and venture into the burning pit of hell that is downtown Louisville traffic to save $2 in tolls. If you lose 15 minutes by using US 41 instead of I-69, that's not worth $2.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2017, 11:04:55 PM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
If that's the case I'd say 41 won't lose much traffic

It will if they do something to discourage through traffic -- more traffic lights, lowered weight limit on the bridge, a truck ban, etc.

It boggles my mind that people would rather go out of the way and venture into the burning pit of hell that is downtown Louisville traffic to save $2 in tolls. If you lose 15 minutes by using US 41 instead of I-69, that's not worth $2.
Haha never underestimate people's cheapness
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 17, 2017, 11:08:38 PM
Actually you save $4 in tolls. And IMO it would be worth it in both cases (Louisville and Evansville).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2017, 11:09:27 PM
Toll em both
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 18, 2017, 02:11:09 PM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
If that's the case I'd say 41 won't lose much traffic

It will if they do something to discourage through traffic -- more traffic lights, lowered weight limit on the bridge, a truck ban, etc.

It boggles my mind that people would rather go out of the way and venture into the burning pit of hell that is downtown Louisville traffic to save $2 in tolls. If you lose 15 minutes by using US 41 instead of I-69, that's not worth $2.
Haha never underestimate people's cheapness

To each their own, but to me, my time and peace of mind are worth something. It's certainly not worth it to me to get off the interstate and have to deal with stop-and-go traffic and traffic lights to cross the US 31 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 25, 2017, 11:13:04 AM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
If that's the case I'd say 41 won't lose much traffic

It will if they do something to discourage through traffic -- more traffic lights, lowered weight limit on the bridge, a truck ban, etc.

It boggles my mind that people would rather go out of the way and venture into the burning pit of hell that is downtown Louisville traffic to save $2 in tolls. If you lose 15 minutes by using US 41 instead of I-69, that's not worth $2.
Haha never underestimate people's cheapness

To each their own, but to me, my time and peace of mind are worth something. It's certainly not worth it to me to get off the interstate and have to deal with stop-and-go traffic and traffic lights to cross the US 31 bridge.

To be fair, the Henderson strip along 41, with a little lighter traffic due to a new 69 bridge, isn't as drastic as entering "the burning pit of hell" of downtown Louisville.

On a side note, discovered a new unfortunate twist with the new Louisville bridge. There is no way to pay tolling until you receive a bill from the fine River Link folks. Received my $4 bill about a week ago, which is all fine and dandy..however, yesterday I received a notice from Enterprise, that they were charging me an additional $10 for processing the toll notice since I happened to be in a rental car that day.

Getting a prepay pass living in Evansville doesn't seem all that practical, and I am not sure how you could transfer that to a rental anyway.

In short, a back and forth across in a rental car will cost you $14. I might dive into the "burning pit of hell" for $14.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 25, 2017, 03:20:14 PM
Getting a prepay pass living in Evansville doesn't seem all that practical, and I am not sure how you could transfer that to a rental anyway.

I don't live anywhere near a toll facility. Closest ones to me are the new Louisville bridges (which I rarely cross) and the West Virginia Turnpike (which I don't use all that often). Regardless, I still have an E-ZPass (issued by the WV Turnpike) and transferring it to a rental is fairly easy. All i would have to do, once I acquired the rental, would be to log onto their website and enter the license plate number. Then when I turned the rental in, go back and remove that plate number from my list of vehicles.

As for mounting, you can get suction cup mounts that stick to the windshield that eliminate the need for the little Velcro strips.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: PurdueBill on March 26, 2017, 01:30:16 PM
Car rental companies have quite the scam going with the extra charges for tolls.

Two years ago Avis billed me for a toll on E-470 that I didn't incur; I had the parking receipt to show that their car was parked at 3am when the toll was supposedly incurred.  They took it off when I protested. 

Last year I needed to rent one-way from EWR airport to 30th Street station in Philadelphia when my flight to PHL went bust; I had brought my E-ZPass with me and went online to enter the rental car's plate number but the Mass E-ZPass web site said "that plate is connected to another account" already despite the E-ZPass being a NY MTA one, possibly from a pay-by-plate ding sometime on the Tobin bridge or something, or maybe the agencies talk to each other.  I still tried using my E-ZPass in the rental on the NJ Turnpike and the Burlington-Bristol Bridge and it worked, without National Car Rental dinging me (thank goodness or else I was going to raise a stink).

If the I-69 bridge is tolled, they really should leave a toll-free crossing for locals and for those of us unfortunate enough to hit the area in a rental.  I've been in EVV with a rental vehicle and I sure wouldn't take a $14 hit for one round-trip across the river--that is a total scam beyond any actual cost to the rental company; it's a pure money grab.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 26, 2017, 02:31:23 PM
Everything's a money grab. Witness a landline phone company charging a $99 connection fee for a house that's already wired, when all they have to do is flip a switch somewhere.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: PurdueBill on March 26, 2017, 09:57:14 PM
Everything's a money grab. Witness a landline phone company charging a $99 connection fee for a house that's already wired, when all they have to do is flip a switch somewhere.

And a monopoly that is allowed to do it.  The car rental people seem to be a cartel who all agree to soak the customers because no one will not grab an exorbitant charge for the toll "service".  Very frustrating.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on March 27, 2017, 08:42:01 AM
Getting a prepay pass living in Evansville doesn't seem all that practical, and I am not sure how you could transfer that to a rental anyway.

I don't live anywhere near a toll facility. Closest ones to me are the new Louisville bridges (which I rarely cross) and the West Virginia Turnpike (which I don't use all that often). Regardless, I still have an E-ZPass (issued by the WV Turnpike) and transferring it to a rental is fairly easy. All i would have to do, once I acquired the rental, would be to log onto their website and enter the license plate number. Then when I turned the rental in, go back and remove that plate number from my list of vehicles.

As for mounting, you can get suction cup mounts that stick to the windshield that eliminate the need for the little Velcro strips.

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on March 27, 2017, 08:54:06 AM

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

I think you can get them from any Jewel Osco store or the Illinois tollway office, off of I-88
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on March 27, 2017, 08:55:11 AM

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

I think you can get them from any Jewel Osco store or the Illinois tollway office, off of I-88

Actually I don't live in Illinois. I just got the IPass because I visit Chicago often.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on March 27, 2017, 08:56:59 AM

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

I think you can get them from any Jewel Osco store or the Illinois tollway office, off of I-88

Actually I don't live in Illinois. I just got the IPass because I visit Chicago often.

ha.  The Cubs logo threw me off.

Longtime Cubs fan in the SW suburbs here.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on March 27, 2017, 09:04:52 AM

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

I think you can get them from any Jewel Osco store or the Illinois tollway office, off of I-88

Actually I don't live in Illinois. I just got the IPass because I visit Chicago often.

ha.  The Cubs logo threw me off.

Longtime Cubs fan in the SW suburbs here.
Actually that's the reason I visit Chicago so much :D
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 27, 2017, 11:09:06 AM
INDOT released their stip report, and 69 ohio river bridge is on it, well the new roadway approach it appears. http://www.in.gov/indot/3132.htm
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 27, 2017, 11:32:39 AM
INDOT released their stip report, and 69 ohio river bridge is on it, well the new roadway approach it appears. http://www.in.gov/indot/3132.htm

Which page?  There are like 291 unsortable pages in the spreadsheet! :-o
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 27, 2017, 11:34:30 AM
INDOT released their stip report, and 69 ohio river bridge is on it, well the new roadway approach it appears. http://www.in.gov/indot/3132.htm

Which page?  There are like 291 unsortable pages in the spreadsheet! :-o

ctrl+f and type in the county, use vanderburgh. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 27, 2017, 12:32:57 PM
INDOT released their stip report, and 69 ohio river bridge is on it, well the new roadway approach it appears. http://www.in.gov/indot/3132.htm

Which page?  There are like 291 unsortable pages in the spreadsheet! :-o

ctrl+f and type in the county, use vanderburgh.

I knew there had to be a secret, I did not think you went through every page.

(I don't use PDFs that often where I would need to search them.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 27, 2017, 12:43:23 PM
It's not very easy to search honestly. But about the list, I skimmed Marion and Vanderburgh and not a whole lot of big stuff. Just maintenance really.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on March 28, 2017, 09:31:26 AM

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

I think you can get them from any Jewel Osco store or the Illinois tollway office, off of I-88

Actually I don't live in Illinois. I just got the IPass because I visit Chicago often.

ha.  The Cubs logo threw me off.

Longtime Cubs fan in the SW suburbs here.
Actually that's the reason I visit Chicago so much :D
Welcome to the club! I may live in Seattle now, but I'm still a Cubs fan through and through :)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on March 28, 2017, 01:13:38 PM
It's not very easy to search honestly. But about the list, I skimmed Marion and Vanderburgh and not a whole lot of big stuff. Just maintenance really.

There is a line for "PR-69" (which is how INDOT refers to unbuilt sections of I-69) for the Ohio River Bridge approaches, but it appears the STIP entry is for engineering and design, not for construction. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 29, 2017, 08:44:53 PM
Getting a prepay pass living in Evansville doesn't seem all that practical, and I am not sure how you could transfer that to a rental anyway.

I don't live anywhere near a toll facility. Closest ones to me are the new Louisville bridges (which I rarely cross) and the West Virginia Turnpike (which I don't use all that often). Regardless, I still have an E-ZPass (issued by the WV Turnpike) and transferring it to a rental is fairly easy. All i would have to do, once I acquired the rental, would be to log onto their website and enter the license plate number. Then when I turned the rental in, go back and remove that plate number from my list of vehicles.

As for mounting, you can get suction cup mounts that stick to the windshield that eliminate the need for the little Velcro strips.

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

Got mine off eBay.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 29, 2017, 09:39:14 PM
It's not very easy to search honestly. But about the list, I skimmed Marion and Vanderburgh and not a whole lot of big stuff. Just maintenance really.

There is a line for "PR-69" (which is how INDOT refers to unbuilt sections of I-69) for the Ohio River Bridge approaches, but it appears the STIP entry is for engineering and design, not for construction.

sounds like they're calling it "paper relocate 69"
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 29, 2017, 10:02:14 PM
More likely Poo Remnant.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on March 30, 2017, 12:55:59 AM
Educated guess: "PR-69" indicates PReliminary I-69 activities (determining exact alignment, searching property titles for land to be acquired, whittling down cost estimates, jurisdictional coordination etc.).  S.O.P.; nothing unexpected to be seen here!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 30, 2017, 07:40:03 AM
I'm thinking Pre-Road...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 04, 2017, 02:42:48 PM
wow 10 yrs

This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/04/03/local-legislators-discuss-busy-session/99748162/) reports that groundbreaking could take place for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge in as soon as three years:

Quote
During the question and answer portion of the breakfast, Caleb May, director of the Henderson County Public Library district, asked about the timeline for the I-69 bridge project.
"Groundbreaking for the project is three to five years," said Judge-executive Brad Schneider, who is also a member of BridgeLink. "Don't let the talk of different routes distract you. By the end of this calendar year, you're going to see tremendous progress toward the environmental impact study and you'll hear about public hearings."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on April 04, 2017, 04:32:15 PM
wow 10 yrs

This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/04/03/local-legislators-discuss-busy-session/99748162/) reports that groundbreaking could take place for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge in as soon as three years:

Quote
During the question and answer portion of the breakfast, Caleb May, director of the Henderson County Public Library district, asked about the timeline for the I-69 bridge project.
"Groundbreaking for the project is three to five years," said Judge-executive Brad Schneider, who is also a member of BridgeLink. "Don't let the talk of different routes distract you. By the end of this calendar year, you're going to see tremendous progress toward the environmental impact study and you'll hear about public hearings."

Now that I-69 signage is posted along both facilities north and south of the proposed bridge site, it's likely that pressure to advance the crossing will come from not only the local region but from the trucking sector as well; Indianapolis-Memphis via I-69 (and, for the time being, US 51 south of Dyersburg, TN) only requires two POE stops (KY, TN) rather than 4 (IL, MO, AR, TN) via I-70/57/55 (not counting any pre-clearance arrangements).  That portion of the I-69 compendium actually makes sense as a largely direct route that avoids major (sorry, Evansville!) metro congestion points. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 13, 2017, 11:00:16 AM
This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/04/03/local-legislators-discuss-busy-session/99748162/)
Quote
"Groundbreaking for the project is three to five years," said Judge-executive Brad Schneider, who is also a member of BridgeLink. "Don't let the talk of different routes distract you. By the end of this calendar year, you're going to see tremendous progress toward the environmental impact study and you'll hear about public hearings."

INDOT and KYTC have taken the first step toward engaging the public by setting up a website,
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/
through which one can sign up for information newsletters, etc. It also has information about upcoming public information hearings in Henderson and Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on April 14, 2017, 09:41:05 AM
About time!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on April 19, 2017, 12:04:06 AM
I was browsing the project website today and saw that they had an open house today about the upcoming environmental process. Here are the links to the presentation (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/201704-PSTN-Open-House-Presentation-FINAL.pdf) and meeting handout (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/20170418-I-69-ORX-Open-House-Handout.pdf). Page 2 of the handout contains the range of alternatives under study for the bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on April 19, 2017, 07:49:34 AM
i didn't realize the west corridor was being considered.  I like the east corridor, but i doubt this will be picked, it will require another bridge over the green river, plus henderson would likely get pissed. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on April 19, 2017, 08:08:58 AM
i didn't realize the west corridor was being considered.  I like the east corridor, but i doubt this will be picked, it will require another bridge over the green river, plus henderson would likely get pissed. 

If the West Corridor is considered, then that means that in the end there would (more than likely) still be only one Ohio River crossing. I hope that it doesn't get selected.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on April 19, 2017, 08:12:01 AM
best case scenario is they have 2 crossings, and all 4 bridges (assuming 69 will be twin bridges) would be brand new. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on April 19, 2017, 08:49:26 AM
In reviewing the proposals, it appeared that all of the options included building a new bridge across the Ohio River.  The two west options would apparently bulldoze over quite a lot of residential area just west of the current Highway 41 strip in Henderson.  I'm not sure what the plan for the existing bridges are with those proposals.  I just can't see any way that they leave a 75 and 50 year old bridge running a new interstate, plus you have access to Ellis Park that would need to be addressed for some.

The far eastern proposal gets everything out of the way of Henderson, but uses a lot of new territory in Kentucky.  It would also require Indiana to renumber I-69's exits.  For instance, Lloyd Expressway is currently Exit 7; it would have to change to Exit 3 or Exit 4.  (That's not a big, big deal, but would require repositioning about 2000 mileage posts (10 per mile each way).  It also would require bulldozing through a couple of subdivisions south of the current interstate and adjacent to Angel Mounds, which the interstate would have to avoid.

I think the center option is the best in which the road goes around the Audubon Park, east and south east of US 60 and then connects in with US 41 north of the Zion Road exit.  I would also pay a few extra bucks to give the road the width to have 3 lanes in both directions.  I could see a need for that in the future, and it would cost much less to do it now than in the future, but of course, this is Indiana, and they don't look ahead.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Georgia on April 19, 2017, 08:23:55 PM
best case scenario is they have 2 crossings, and all 4 bridges (assuming 69 will be twin bridges) would be brand new.

you think they would honestly spend the money on 4 new bridges in the current climate?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on April 19, 2017, 08:56:23 PM
best case scenario is they have 2 crossings, and all 4 bridges (assuming 69 will be twin bridges) would be brand new.

you think they would honestly spend the money on 4 new bridges in the current climate?

no that's why i said best case scenario, what will happen is just one bridge for 69, and 41 will fall apart.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on April 19, 2017, 11:47:59 PM
It's pretty explicitly stated in the study document that the plan is to remove the US 41 bridges when the new span is completed, given the effort to ensure there's a connection to US 41 near the river.

Presumably that also gives them the option of delaying the freeway connection from the new bridge to the Pennyrile if necessary for funding reasons, while allowing the existing bridges to be retired, saving on future maintenance.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on April 20, 2017, 12:47:52 AM
i didn't realize the west corridor was being considered.  I like the east corridor, but i doubt this will be picked, it will require another bridge over the green river, plus henderson would likely get pissed.

As I recall, most of the Henderson interests wanted the east corridor because it took through traffic off the strip and gave them a new "front door" using KY 351/Zion Rd/2nd St.  But from what I see, there's no proposed interchange at 351 with either the Central 2 or East corridors.

This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/03/31/business-booming-along-41-strip/96129876/) seems to indicate that the less foot-dragging that goes on, the better ... Henderson's growth isn't going to wait.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on April 20, 2017, 07:31:28 AM
It's pretty explicitly stated in the study document that the plan is to remove the US 41 bridges when the new span is completed, given the effort to ensure there's a connection to US 41 near the river.

Presumably that also gives them the option of delaying the freeway connection from the new bridge to the Pennyrile if necessary for funding reasons, while allowing the existing bridges to be retired, saving on future maintenance.

they're not going to remove both bridges
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on April 20, 2017, 08:22:33 AM
They are currently in the process of redecking the bridges to increase their lifespan by 25 years.  I could see them perhaps going from twin bridges to focusing on one bridge (the newer one), since that is only 50 years old (compared to 75), and actually has a better approach on the Indiana side.  The older bridge has a somewhat sharp turn left going north as it is going around Ellis Park.  There really needs to be a second crossing over the Ohio in the Evansville/Henderson metro in case of a bad accident.  There are two near Owensboro with much less traffic through that area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on April 20, 2017, 10:28:03 PM
They are currently in the process of redecking the bridges to increase their lifespan by 25 years.  I could see them perhaps going from twin bridges to focusing on one bridge (the newer one), since that is only 50 years old (compared to 75), and actually has a better approach on the Indiana side.  The older bridge has a somewhat sharp turn left going north as it is going around Ellis Park.  There really needs to be a second crossing over the Ohio in the Evansville/Henderson metro in case of a bad accident.  There are two near Owensboro with much less traffic through that area.

Actually, the northbound span is 85 years old. I agree on the second crossing, I am pretty sure this is the largest MSA on either the Ohio or Mississippi with a single crossing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on July 01, 2017, 09:44:09 PM
700 WLW in Cincinnati was reporting today that field offices for the I-69 bridge have opened up this week in both Indiana and Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 02, 2017, 05:11:07 PM
700 WLW in Cincinnati was reporting today that field offices for the I-69 bridge have opened up this week in both Indiana and Kentucky.

I'm assuming that since an actual bridge alignment or the location of approach routes has yet to be finalized, these field offices are more for deployment of resources aimed at actually ensuring that progress continues toward the construction of the new bridge rather than anything to do with physical construction activity. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 02, 2017, 06:31:46 PM
The new offices are open in Evansville and Henderson, KY.  Apparently the same staff since they are open different days of the week; both offices are never open at the same time.  They are working on finalizing the route, which is not expected until sometime late in 2018.  Construction at the earliest to begin in 2020 (perhaps is wishful thinking).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 03, 2017, 12:47:36 AM
The new offices are open in Evansville and Henderson, KY.  Apparently the same staff since they are open different days of the week; both offices are never open at the same time.  They are working on finalizing the route, which is not expected until sometime late in 2018.  Construction at the earliest to begin in 2020 (perhaps is wishful thinking).

That sounds suspiciously like the real estate offices that were deployed in new housing tracts during the "bubble" of the early 2000's -- roving staff selling a batch here and a batch there before collecting their commissions and moving on.  Guess the concept works as well for selling a bridge project to those who can make it happen in both states involved.  However, in this case, let's hope they're successful in as short a timeframe as possible!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-39 on July 04, 2017, 09:02:21 PM
They are working on finalizing the route, which is not expected until sometime late in 2018.  Construction at the earliest to begin in 2020 (perhaps is wishful thinking).

That is incredibly optimistic. I doubt that happens.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 05, 2017, 02:35:50 PM
2030 seems like a better estimate on when construction might start, in my opinion.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 05, 2017, 06:22:30 PM
they have to figure out the alignment, file some annoying permits, then design it, then build it.  that's a long ass time
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-39 on July 05, 2017, 08:15:07 PM
they have to figure out the alignment, file some annoying permits, then design it, then build it.  that's a long ass time

This. I don't think they even have an alignment selected yet? And we all know how long environmental approvals take.........
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on July 06, 2017, 02:32:19 AM
Is there even a design for the I-69 bridge. It didn't even take this long for the US 231 Owensboro bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 08:08:21 AM
i doubt they can design it not knowing where it will be. the damn permits will take the most time. i HATE filing permits!  :banghead:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 06, 2017, 08:16:10 AM
There are five current alignments in the mix.  Two of them I didn't know about until a month ago have the bridge being built just to the WEST of the current US 41 bridge and the road tearing up a residential commercial area west of the current strip in Henderson to merge into the current US 41 at its interchange with US 60.  Two other options have the bridge just east of the current US 41 bridge (crossing near the mouth of the Green River into the Ohio) and going around Audubon Park to the old Pennyrile either just before the Zion Road exit or near the 425 exit.  The final alternative plows through residential neighborhoods in Western Warrick County east of the Angel Mounds State Monument and crosses the Ohio and goes far east in Henderson County, KY to hitch up with I-69 near the Highway 425 exit.  I really think the middle two options are the more likely.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 08:18:13 AM
There are five current alignments in the mix.  Two of them I didn't know about until a month ago have the bridge being built just to the WEST of the current US 41 bridge and the road tearing up a residential commercial area west of the current strip in Henderson to merge into the current US 41 at its interchange with US 60.  Two other options have the bridge just east of the current US 41 bridge (crossing near the mouth of the Green River into the Ohio) and going around Audubon Park to the old Pennyrile either just before the Zion Road exit or near the 425 exit.  The final alternative plows through residential neighborhoods in Western Warrick County east of the Angel Mounds State Monument and crosses the Ohio and goes far east in Henderson County, KY to hitch up with I-69 near the Highway 425 exit.  I really think the middle two options are the more likely.

have a link to a map of the proposed alignments?  i'm not sure why they even considered anything west of 41, that's a weird choice.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on July 06, 2017, 08:47:56 AM


have a link to a map of the proposed alignments?  i'm not sure why they even considered anything west of 41, that's a weird choice.

Here you go..

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/20170418-I-69-ORX-Open-House-Handout.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on July 06, 2017, 08:59:12 AM


have a link to a map of the proposed alignments?  i'm not sure why they even considered anything west of 41, that's a weird choice.

Here you go..

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/20170418-I-69-ORX-Open-House-Handout.pdf

Better yet...

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/I-69-FEASIBILITY-STUDY.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 01:25:20 PM
i personally like the east crossing. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 06, 2017, 05:12:26 PM
The east crossing does create the least amount of problems for Henderson itself; its overall cost is essentially on a parity with the other options.  However, it appears that all of the options save one of the east alternatives eliminate the present US 41 twin crossings and leave only the I-69 bridge, regardless of location, as the sole river crossing.  It appears that the calculus being employed here takes into account the ongoing maintenance costs of the existing bridges -- and is essentially attempting to utilize the future zeroing-out of that cost as one of the justifications for the new facility.  With that in mind, it's likely that even if the option eventually selected is the one that retains the US 41 crossing, one of the bridges -- ostensibly the oldest one -- will be dismantled, leaving a 2-lane "surface" facility to serve as the direct Henderson-Evansville connector, with the I-69 facility's utilization primarily dedicated to longer-distance traffic plus (via the US 60 interchange with the eastern option) access to the eastern parts of Evansville.  It's probably been calculated that with the through traffic removed from US 41, a single bridge will be adequate to address the mainly local usage.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 06, 2017, 05:37:34 PM
I would propose an alternate 8, leave in place.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 06, 2017, 07:37:29 PM
i personally like the east crossing.

I personally do as well, and feel it would provide the most benefit to the area motorists, providing the growing Newburgh area with a crossing several miles east of the current one. Will create the most benefit to Henderson as well by opening up the far eastern edge of the city for easy accessibility.

With that said, it will be the most costly in terms of mileage, and would be the only route requiring a bridge over the Green River. My gut tells me we will get one of the Central Corridors.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 06, 2017, 07:40:27 PM
I would propose an alternate 8, leave in place.

Not gonna happen!  Too much local support on both sides of the river for this project to be abandoned.  The die was cast with the completion of I-69 from both directions, leaving only the bridge to be deployed.  No jurisdiction, official, or project promoter wants Henderson to be another Breezewood -- and that includes Henderson itself!  At this point in time, it appears that for the most part those who would prefer to dance on the grave of a truncated I-69 have retrenched back to the occasional "piss & moan" session, with little if any lasting effect. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 09:38:45 PM
they should rebuild 41's bridges and build the east alternative for 69, and toll 69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 06, 2017, 10:34:24 PM
I would propose an alternate 8, leave in place.

What is your problem with building the new bridge? Do you like traffic bottlenecks?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 10:36:01 PM
evansville and henderson should have 2, 4 lane crossings. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 07, 2017, 11:38:10 AM
I would propose an alternate 8, leave in place.

What is your problem with building the new bridge? Do you like traffic bottlenecks?

He has some strange obsession about this bridge, even though he lives in Tennessee. He drove through here on a Sunday morning, didn't see a traffic issue, and is worried about the fast food joints that line the strip. He thinks Henderson's best option is to become a Breezewood on I-69....

Ignore the fact the Henderson Chamber is 110% on board with a new bridge and it is the focal project for both cities. I have reminded him several times that the Evansville-Henderson metro is the largest metro on either the Ohio or Mississippi with a single bridge crossing. Now that there is new lane restrictions and construction, we will face again numerous lengthy delays going across. None of this matters to this clown..he keeps coming back with concern for the businesses on the strip. There is nothing on that strip except chain fast food joints and convenience stores that are found in every single city of the same size. They will continue to serve the local population just fine.

I love old highways. When time allows, I often take US 41 from Henderson to Hopkinsville, or other US Highways that parallel interstates...and you and many others can and will use US 41 across the Ohio to keep plenty of traffic on it, but the 400,000 residents and daily commuters of this metro deserve and need better access.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on July 07, 2017, 08:25:55 PM
They're going to be doing major construction on the US 41 bridges for the next couple of years starting in the fall.

 http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/twin-bridges-us-41-set-for-major-construction/465222603

The bridges are supposed to last another 2 decades before they'll need more (major) work.

Quote
KYTC officials say the twin bridges are inspected biannually. The last inspection was in August 2014 and it received a “satisfactory” rating.

Officials say the construction project aims to ensure the longevity of the bridge, not because it's unsafe.

Quote
More than two years of round-the-clock headaches for drivers, for work engineers say will last two decades.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 11, 2017, 11:49:55 AM
One of the projects will squeeze three lanes onto one of the bridges while work is done is on the other bridge. That seems like a stretch.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on July 11, 2017, 02:48:31 PM
One of the projects will squeeze three lanes onto one of the bridges while work is done is on the other bridge. That seems like a stretch.

http://www.14news.com/category/325565/henderson-bridge-hd-skycam-sponsored-by-dempewolf-ford
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 11, 2017, 04:21:14 PM
One of the projects will squeeze three lanes onto one of the bridges while work is done is on the other bridge. That seems like a stretch.

http://www.14news.com/category/325565/henderson-bridge-hd-skycam-sponsored-by-dempewolf-ford

I tried to look online to see how wide each lane would be but I couldn't find anything or I may have overlooked something.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on July 11, 2017, 05:39:29 PM
The draft MOT plans are showing 10' ou